RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00943
            INDEX CODES:  115.00, 131.09
                          135.00

            COUNSEL:  GEORGE E. DAY

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  subsequent  to  Dec  95  be
withdrawn.

By amendment, he be returned to  flying  status  in  an  F-16  fighter
aircraft Air Force Reserve Unit, be promoted,  receive  back  or  lost
pay, drills, and points, and any other equitable  relief  which  would
make him whole.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was improperly relieved for insisting that perjury,  adultery,  and
fraternizing are punishable  criminal  offenses,  and  insisting  that
general officers and the Air National Guard leadership should  not  be
able to lie and  cover  up  other  general  officers’  misconduct  and
whitewash such misconduct.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and summary of relief from counsel.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air National  Guard  in
the grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade on
1 Aug 93.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1988 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      21 Dec 88  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      31 May 89  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      14 Oct 89  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      14 Oct 90  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      14 Oct 91  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
       6 Jul 92  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      23 May 93  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      15 May 94  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      15 May 95  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *   1 Nov 95   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *  15 Jul 96   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *  15 Jul 97   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *  15 Jul 98   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *  15 Jul 98   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *  15 Jul 99   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)

* Contested Reports.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force  and  the
Department of the Defense Office of the  Inspector  General  (DOD  IG)
Report of Investigation (Exhibit C).  Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Executive Support Staff  Officer,  New  York  Air  National  Guard
(NYANG), DMNA/ANG-ESSO,  reviewed  this  application  and  recommended
denial.  According to DMNA/ANG-ESSO, virtually all of the  allegations
raised by the applicant have previously been investigated at one  time
or another since 1995.  In general, their review  of  the  application
indicated that the applicant was selective in the facts  presented  to
the Board.  In DMNA/ ANG-ESSO’s view, the investigative reports  speak
for themselves.

DMNA/ANG-ESSO noted the Report  of  Investigation,  dated  10 Sep  95.
This report was sometimes referred to as the  "XXXXX"  report  in  the
applicant's submission.  DMNA/ANG-ESSO indicated that nowhere  in  the
report  was  disciplinary  or  administrative  action  recommended  or
suggested with respect to the applicant.

DMNA/ANG-ESSO  also  noted  that  the  applicant  and   others   filed
retaliation charges under 10 USC 1034 naming many of the same officers
complained   of   in   this   application.    Following   a   yearlong
investigation, a report was completed during Sep 97 by SAF/IG.  All 32
complaints were unsubstantiated.

DMNA/ANG-ESSO further  noted  the  New  York  State  Office  of  State
Inspector General (OSIG) Investigation (Dec 97).  They indicated  that
this investigation was referred to in the  applicant's  submission  as
the “Second” investigation.  DMNA/ANG-ESSO indicated that the findings
of this investigation speak for themselves.  In  relevant  part,  this
separate independent  investigation  analyzed  the  personnel  actions
taken by command with respect to the applicant and  others  and  found
all to be proper and appropriate actions.  In  particular,  this  1997
State Investigation concluded that the new commander’s efforts to work
with many of the pilots at the 174th  was  severely  hampered  by  the
pilots’ refusal to accept the commander’s leadership and vision.

A complete copy of the DMNA/ANG-ESSO evaluation, with attachments,  is
at Exhibit D.

The  Chief,  Personnel  Operations  Branch,  ANG/DPPU,  reviewed  this
application and recommended denial.  In ANG/DPPU’s  view,  the  appeal
did not carry  the  necessary  burden  of  establishing  an  error  or
injustice, and the applicant’s removal was a  legitimate  exercise  of
command authority.

A complete copy of the ANG/DPPU evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter, dated 14 Jul 00, counsel provided a response  amending  the
requested relief, which is attached at Exhibit G.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and
the documentation presented in  support  of  his  appeal  sufficiently
persuasive to override the findings of a DOD IG  Investigation,  which
concluded that the applicant’s removal  from  his  position  as  group
commander and subsequent reassignment were within command  discretion,
violated no law or regulation, and were appropriate given the  changes
in conduct and focus that the commander  felt  were  essential.   With
regard to the applicant’s request for removal of his  OPRs  subsequent
to Dec 95, he has not  specified  what  is  wrong  with  the  reports.
Furthermore, no evidence has been presented which  would  lead  us  to
believe that the reports were inaccurate depictions of his performance
at the time they were originally prepared.  In view of the above,  and
in the absence of clear-cut evidence to the contrary, we conclude that
no basis exists to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 Aug 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. William Anderson, Member
      Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 96, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  DOD IG Report of Investigation, dated 1 Sep 99
                (withdrawn).
    Exhibit D.  Letter, DMNA/ANG-ESSO, dated 27 May 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 17 Feb 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Mar 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, counsel, dated 14 Jul 00.




                                   HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                   Panel Chair