RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01271
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02; 126.02; 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports  (EPRs),  rendered  for  the  periods
21 October 1997 through 20 October 1998, and 21 October  1998  through
31 May 1999, be declared void and removed from his records; he be made
eligible for promotion; and that  his  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)
code of 2X (First-term, second-term or career  airman  considered  but
not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program
(SRP)) be changed to allow him to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The adverse actions taken against him were for reasons other than duty
performance.  The persons who initiated the action had no  justifiable
factual basis.  Many of the  comments  upon  which  the  demotion  and
separation actions were taken  are  conclusions  rather  than  factual
statements.

Prior to his assignment to the 21st Special Tactics Squadron (STS), he
had an outstanding record.  Despite the seriousness of the accusations
leveled against him, he  has  never  been  formally  charged  with  an
offense or offered nonjudicial punishment.  At a  time  when  the  Air
Force is trying to retain and recruit quality people, the 21st STS  is
fighting to continue to eliminate a certain ethnic group and  maintain
its quota.

According to the Air Force Instruction, the commander should  use  the
entire military record in deciding whether  demotion  is  appropriate.
He hopes the Board will examine his entire record  before  taking  the
serious step of demotion and denying reenlistment.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  supporting
statement from the chaplain indicating that retaining the applicant in
the 21st STS, Pope AFB, should not be an option.  He also  included  a
copy of AF Form 948 (Application for Correction/Removal of  Evaluation
Reports), with supporting statements;  a  copy  of  his  DD  Form  214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); copies of  his
performance reports; and other documents associated  with  the  issues
under review.  Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s original Master Personnel Record (MPR) is  lost.   The
available records were rebuilt from  microfiche  and  the  applicant’s
copies.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  7  June
1984, in the grade of E-1, for a period of 4 years.  He  continued  to
reenlist, contracting his last enlistment  on  1  March  1994,  for  a
period of 6 years.  He was promoted to the grade of E-5,  effective  1
September 1993.

Applicant's available EPR ratings follow:

     PERIOD ENDING                            EVALUATION

      20 Oct 1994            5
      20 Oct 1995            5
      20 Oct 1996            5
      10 Oct 1997            4
   *  20 Oct 1998            3
   *  31 May 1999            2 (Referral)

* Contested reports

After receiving the 31 May 1999 referral EPR, the applicant  submitted
statements in his behalf.  On 30 July 1999, the applicant was notified
that  his  commander  was  referring  his  demotion  to  the  Demotion
Authority.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  on
the same date.  He was demoted from E-5 to E-4, effective  29  October
1999.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the case  are  unknown,
as limited records are available.  The  applicant  was  discharged  on
29 February 2000, with an honorable discharge by reason of “Completion
of Required Active Service.”  He received an  RE  code  of  2X  and  a
separation code of LBK.  He had served 15 years, 8 months and 24  days
on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial of the applicant’s request  for  correction  of
his RE code.  The applicant was a marginal performer as  evidenced  by
his referral  performance  report.   In  their  opinion,  he  has  not
indicated  satisfactorily  that  the  commander’s   action   to   deny
reenlistment was inappropriate or not in  compliance  with  Air  Force
policy.  If the Board grants relief, the record should be corrected to
reflect his RE code as 3K (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the  AFBCMR,
when  no  other  RE  code  applies  or  is  appropriate).   The  DPPAE
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
deferred to the  recommendation  of  DPPAE.   However,  if  the  Board
nullifies the demotion, his date of rank for E-5 would be  1 September
1993.  If the Board favorably  considers  removal  of  the  two  EPRs,
supplemental promotion consideration would serve  no  useful  purpose,
since his total score would not increase enough  to  meet  the  cutoff
score required for selection.  The complete evaluation is  at  Exhibit
D.

The BCMR Appeals and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPA, recommended denial.  The
applicant contends the contested reports  are  inconsistent  with  his
previous performance.  The EPR was designed to provide a rating for  a
specific period of time based on the  performance  noted  during  that
period, not based on previous performance.  Air Force policy states an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a  matter  of
record.  To effectively challenge a report, it is  necessary  to  hear
from all members of the rating chain, not only for  support  but  also
for clarification/explanation.

In support of the  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  statements  from
coworkers.  While these individuals are entitled to their opinions  of
the applicant’s duty performance and the events which occurred  around
the time the reports were rendered, DPPPA does not believe  they  were
in a better position to evaluate his duty performance than  those  who
were specifically assigned that responsibility.  The applicant did not
provide rating chain support.  The DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant states that he avoided  the  issue  of  racism  in  this
matter because there are so many incidents to prove his point  without
using racism.  However, it appears the only way  officials  will  look
into this matter is to look at color.  He  believes  a  check  of  the
history of the 86th STS group will prove  that  a  pattern  of  racism
exists.  The applicant’s complete response, with  attachments,  is  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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting corrective action.

      a.  After reviewing the available evidence and  the  applicant’s
supporting statements,  especially  those  comments  provided  by  the
chaplain, we believe that  the  circumstances  of  this  case  do  not
support a finding that  the  applicant’s  duty  performance  warranted
demotion action.

      b.  Having determined that the  demotion  was  unwarranted,  the
referral report, which was the basis for the demotion, should also  be
voided and removed from the record.  We  noted  that  the  applicant’s
performance on the contested report closing 20 October 1998, was rated
an overall “3” indicating that he should be considered for  promotion.
However, the comments by the rater and additional rater are similar to
those usually found on a referral report.  Moreover, mid-term feedback
was not conducted in accordance with the governing instruction.   Even
though the applicant did not provide rating chain support for  voiding
the  contested  reports  or  the  demotion  action,   we   noted   the
overwhelming support from individuals who were  knowledgeable  of  his
performance during the periods in question.  Furthermore, we  did  not
expect that the evaluators would provide  statements  attesting  to  a
personality conflict or racial bias and the possibility that they were
unable to fairly rate the applicant on his duty performance.  After  a
thorough review of the material provided,  including  the  applicant’s
previous performance reports, we believe that  the  contested  reports
are not fair and accurate assessments of his overall duty  performance
and should be removed from his record.

      c.  Since it is our recommendation that the demotion action  and
contested reports be voided, there  no  longer  exists  any  plausible
reason for the applicant to have been denied reenlistment.  Therefore,
we   also   recommend   that    the    AF    Form    418,    Selective
Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration,  be  voided
and removed from his  records.   In  making  this  recommendation,  we
allowed for the possibility  that  the  applicant’s  master  personnel
record might resurface.

      d.  We noted the chaplain’s concern that returning the applicant
to his previous duty assignment should not be an option and  we  agree
that to do so would continue the injustice  already  suffered  by  the
applicant.  However, while we recommend that he be assigned to a  base
other than Pope AFB, we do not believe  it  appropriate  to  recommend
that  he  be  assigned  to  his  base  of  preference.   His  ultimate
assignment should be dictated by the needs of the Air Force.

      e.  We noted that  the  applicant  requested  that  he  be  made
eligible for promotion.  However, according to the office  of  primary
responsibility, the Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ
AFPC/DPPPWB,  supplemental  promotion  consideration  would  serve  no
useful purpose, since his total score would  not  increase  enough  to
meet the cutoff score for selection.

In view of the foregoing, we recommend that the applicant’s record  be
corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  The Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Forms 910, rendered for
the periods 21 October 1997 through 20 October  1998,  and  21 October
1998 through 31 May 1999,  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

      b.  His  demotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  airman  (E-4)  on
29 October 1999, be declared void and removed from  his  records,  and
his date of rank and effective date to E-5 be restored to  1 September
1993.

      c.  The  AF  Form  418,  Selective  Reenlistment/Noncommissioned
Officer Status  Consideration,  in  which  the  commander  denied  him
reenlistment, be declared void and removed from his records.

      d.  He was not discharged on 29 February 2000, but was continued
on active duty and was ordered Permanent Change of  Station  (PCS)  to
his home of record pending further orders.

      e.  On 1 March 2000, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force  for
a period of four (4) years in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

      f.  He be considered for assignment to his  base  of  preference
and that he be assigned to any base other than Pope AFB.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                 Mr. George Franklin, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 May 200, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 Sep 2000.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Sep 200.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPPA, dated 19 Oct 2000.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Nov 2000.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Nov 2000.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 00-01271




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the  Air
Force Board for  Correction  of  Military  Records  and  under  the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code  (70A  Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to, be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Forms 910,
rendered for the periods 21 October 1997 through 20 October 1998, and
21 October 1998 through 31 May 1999, be, and hereby are, declared void
and removed from his records.

            b.  His demotion to the grade of senior airman (E-4) on
29 October 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records, and his date of rank and effective date to E-5 be restored to
1 September 1993.

            c.  The AF Form 418, Selective
Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, in which
the commander denied him reenlistment, be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from his records.

            d.  He was not discharged on 29 February 2000, but was
continued on active duty and was ordered Permanent Change of Station
(PCS) to his home of record pending further orders.

            e.  On 1 March 2000, he reenlisted in the Regular Air
Force for a period of four (4) years in the grade of staff sergeant (E-
5).

            f.  He  be  considered  for  assignment  to  his  base  of
preference and that he be assigned to any base other than Pope AFB.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency