RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02224
            INDEX CODES:  107.00, 111.05,
                          126.03

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  MR. FRED L. BAUER

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  She be awarded an end-of-tour Meritorious Service Medal (MSM)  for
the period 13 Jun 97-25 May 99.

2.  The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 21 Jun  99,  the  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) and  all  other  related  negative  entries  be
removed from her permanent records.

3.  The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR),  rendered  for  the
period 13 Jun 98 through 29 Jun 99, be declared void and removed  from
her records.

4.  She be reassigned to a promotable “Air Staff” position/assignment.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She suffered an injustice because she was relieved from  her  position
as  squadron  commander  for  alleged  reprisal  against  one  of  her
subordinate officers.  As a result, she was given an LOR  with  a  UIF
entry, a referral OPR, denied an end-of-tour award and her  Air  Staff
assignment was canceled.

In support of  her  request,  counsel  submits  a  legal  Brief,  with
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   the
contentions (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  20
Jun 82.  She is currently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel, with an effective date and date of rank of  1  Feb
99.

The following is a  resume  of  her  OPR  ratings  subsequent  to  her
promotion to the grade of major.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

      (Major)      29 May 95 Meets Standards (MS)
              29 May 96           MS
              12 Jun 97      Training Report (TE)
              12 Jun 98           MS
      (Lt Col)   * 29 Jun 99 Does Not Meet Standards
              29 Jun 00           MS

*  Contested Referral OPR

Effective 15 Jul 97 the applicant was assigned  as  commander  of  the
numbered squadron, Andersen AFB, Guam.

On 14 Jun 98, the applicant received a Letter  of  Admonishment  (LOA)
following the issuance of the findings of a commander-directed inquiry
conducted pursuant to an IG complaint substantiating allegations  that
the Weight Management Program (WMP) and  Enlisted  Performance  Report
(EPR) system in applicant’s unit were mismanaged and manipulated.   On
18 Jun 98, the Area Defense Counsel submitted a response  to  the  LOA
(refer to Exhibit A, Atch 7).

An Inspector  General  (IG)  investigation  was  conducted  concerning
reprisal and abuse of authority within the numbered squadron, Anderson
AFB, Guam.  The applicant was the squadron commander from  15  Jul  97
until she was relieved of command on 25 May 99.  The IG Summary Report
of Investigation (SROI), dated 15 Jun 99, reflects 15 allegations,  11
were substantiated and four were unsubstantiated.

On 21 Jun 99, the applicant  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)
following the Inspector General (IG)  investigation,  which  disclosed
that she reprised or attempted to reprise against a  subordinate.   An
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was automatically established as  a
result of the LOR.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  Directorate  of  Assignments,  HQ  AFPC/DPASC,  stated  that  the
applicant was originally on assignment to the Air Staff (AFCIC/SY) for
a June 1999 reporting.  However,  removal  from  command  led  to  the
decision by AFCIC/SY to cancel her  assignment  to  their  selectively
manned Air Staff billet.   Until  being  relieved  from  command,  her
record of performance was indicative of other officers assigned to the
Air Staff.  DPASC indicated that future assignment to  the  Air  Staff
would be contingent upon removal of  the  referral  OPR  and  a  valid
vacancy (Exhibit C).


The Field Operations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, stated that the  applicant
received an  LOR  on  21  Jun  99  after  an  Inspector  General  (IG)
investigation disclosed that she  reprised  or  attempted  to  reprise
against a subordinate.  DPSFM indicated that the use  of  the  LOR  by
commanders and supervisors is an exercise of supervisory authority and
responsibility and that LORs automatically establish UIFs  on  officer
personnel.  UIFs may be used by commanders to form  the  basis  for  a
variety of adverse actions as they relate  to  the  member’s  conduct,
bearing, behavior, integrity and so forth (on or off  duty),  or  less
than acceptable duty performance.  Wing commanders have the option  to
remove an officer’s UIF early.  DPSFM believes the commander decision-
making  authority  is  appropriate  and  was  properly   administered.
Therefore,  DPSFM  recommended  the  applicant’s  request  be   denied
(Exhibit D).


The Recognition  Programs  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPR,  stated  that  the
applicant served as commander from “13 Jun 97” until she was  relieved
of command on 25 May 99.  She received a Letter of Admonishment  (LOA)
on 14 Jun 98, a LOR on 21 Jun 99, and a referral OPR for the period 13
Jun  98-29  Jun  99.   The  applicant  was  the  subject  of   an   IG
investigation concerning reprisal and  abuse  of  authority,  and  the
Summary Report of Investigation was concluded on 15 Jun 99.  Of the 15
allegations, 11 were  substantiated  and  four  were  unsubstantiated.
DPPPR  indicated  that  AFI  36-2803   restricts   recommendation   to
recognition of meritorious service, outstanding achievement or acts of
heroism  that  clearly  place  an  individual  above  his/her   peers.
Furthermore, decorations cannot be awarded or presented to any  person
whose entire service for the period covered has  not  been  honorable.
DPPPR stated that unless  the  IG  report  is  declared  invalid,  the
referral OPR is voided and all negative documents are removed from the
applicant’s  files,  she  cannot  be  considered  for  an  end-of-tour
decoration.  DPPPR recommended the applicant’s request  for  award  of
the MSM be disapproved (Exhibit E).


The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, stated
that there are no technical errors in the preparation  and  processing
of the contested referral OPR.  The rater considered  and  elected  to
include adverse action.  DPPPE indicated that  there  are  no  factual
errors in  the  contested  OPR.   The  allegations  of  reprisal  were
substantiated in the Summary Report of Investigation, dated 15 Jun 99.
 An evaluation report is considered to represent  the  rating  chain’s
best judgment at the time it  is  rendered.   DPPPE  stated  that  the
applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not  rendered
in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge  available  at  the
time.  Based  on  the  information  provided,  DPPPE  recommended  the
applicant’s request to remove the contested report be denied  (Exhibit
F).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated  that  he  is  in
complete agreement with the advisory from HQ  AFPC/DPASC  (Assignments
Section).  With regard to the advisory from HQ AFPC/DPPPE, counsel did
not assert that there were any technical problems with  the  contested
report.  Counsel has shown that the subordinate officer (Captain J---)
was a substandard officer and that the applicant was  fully  justified
in giving him a poor performance report.  Now that the AFBCMR has more
than ample evidence to show that the OPR  unfairly  characterizes  the
applicant and her actions, the contested report should  be  corrected.
As to the advisory from HQ AFPC/DPPPR (Awards and Decs), the  evidence
submitted supports removal of negative documents from applicant’s file
and therefore this should clear the way for the MSM.  In reference  to
the  advisory   from   HQ   AFPC/DPSFM   (Field   Operations),   their
recommendation is simply a statement without providing any  basis  for
it.  It is of no value except as an expression of that the  reviewer’s
personal opinion.  It should be given the same weight as  the  support
it provides for its recommendation, zero.

In response  to  the  FOIA  request  for  the  IG  investigation,  the
censoring of what was sent was so heavy that it is  of  little  value.
Counsel asks that “we” be given the opportunity to review the full  IG
investigation in camera (at the office of the AFBCMR).  Counsel states
that accusations are made in this case by subordinates who have “an ax
to grind” and  fellow  officers  who  were  in  competition  with  the
applicant in the same wing.  They are interviewed without any  mention
of their prejudices and motivations.  Counsel also asks that the Board
take a close look at the approach of the investigating officer (IO) in
this case; it is clear  that  he  made  up  his  mind  prior  to  even
interviewing the applicant.

A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, disagrees with the  applicant’s
contention that she  was  denied  due  process  because  she  was  not
provided with the information necessary to defend herself during an IG
investigation.  JAG indicated  that  in  Mar  99,  the  numbered  wing
commander directed an investigation into 15  separate  allegations  of
reprisal against applicant.  The applicant  initially  refused  to  be
interviewed by the investigating officer (IO) and  agreed  to  respond
only to written questions.

JAG  stated  that  due  process  does  not  require  that  during   an
investigation, the subject be given all of the  available  information
in order to fashion a response.  All due process  requires  during  an
investigation is that the subject be given notice of the substance  of
the investigation and an opportunity to respond truthfully.   In  this
case, applicant requested and received  written  questions  addressing
allegations against her to which she  provided  an  18-page  response.
Accordingly, applicant was  not  denied  due  process  during  the  IG
investigation.

JAG indicated that although the applicant does not complain  that  she
was denied due process subsequent to the  IG  investigation,  she  was
entitled to, and did in fact receive,  due  process  in  the  LOR  and
referral OPR process.

With respect to the applicant’s  request  to  review  a  copy  of  the
complete IG investigation in camera, while JAG is satisfied  that  the
investigation was fair, the Board may wish to review the IG report  of
investigation  to  determine  for  itself  the  objectivity   of   the
investigation.  Then, if the Board so desires, the Board could make an
in camera review possible in the interest  of  satisfying  applicant’s
concerns over the fairness of the investigation.  Nevertheless, JAG is
satisfied  that  the  applicant  received  due  process   during   the
investigation and in the adverse actions taken against her.  In  JAG’s
opinion, there has been no error or injustice.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the advisory opinion and agrees  with  HQ  USAF/JAG’s
definition  of  procedural   due   process   and   the   elements   of
administrative due process.  Counsel’s position is simple; how can you
properly respond unless you know exactly who said what about you?  JAG
has agreed with counsel that there is a way in which this  matter  can
be resolved by allowing the Board to review the materials and if  they
so desire, could make an  in  camera  review  possible.   Accordingly,
counsel respectfully requests an opportunity to review these reports.

Counsel stated that the applicant, especially during her first year in
the squadron, had to address numerous disciplinary problems within the
unit, including drug cases among others.  The sum total  of  decisions
made in these cases built the image of an unpopular commander who  had
to clean up a number of personnel problems.  This unpopularity carried
over into the testimony of many of the witnesses  who  disagreed  with
the  commander’s  decisions  and  therefore  held  it   against   her.
Furthermore, some of these same witnesses were the  subject  of  these
unpopular decisions.  Therefore, how is  it  “due  process”  when  the
testimony of these very  same  people  is  taken  as  ‘fact’  and  the
applicant is not given  full  opportunity  to  refute  their  complete
testimony?

A complete copy of counsel’s response is appended at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________

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 injustice concerning  the  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR), the Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and the Referral Officer
Performance Report (OPR) closing 29 Jun 99.  After a  thorough  review
of the IG Report and the actions taken against the applicant  for  the
alleged reprisal against a subordinate officer, the Board majority  is
persuaded that some relief is warranted.  The Board noted that,  as  a
result of  the  IG  substantiating  11  of  the  15  allegations,  the
applicant was relieved of her command, received the contested  LOR/UIF
and referral OPR.  Although the commander may  have  been  within  his
discretionary authority in taking the administrative actions he did in
rendering the LOR/UIF and referral OPR, the  Board  majority  believes
the applicant has created sufficient doubt as to whether she  deserved
the administrative actions taken against her.  In  this  respect,  the
Board majority noted that, prior to her assignment  to  Anderson  AFB,
the applicant had an impeccable 17 years of service, which resulted in
her being selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel and a candidate
for Senior Service School.  Apparently, the applicant entered  into  a
command that already had problems and was not up to standards.  During
her tenure as commander, the Board majority  noted  the  extraordinary
efforts made by the applicant to bring about a  successful  turnaround
of events in her command, but because of  her  management  style,  may
have alienated some of her subordinates.   The  Board  majority  noted
that her superiors were  well  aware  of  the  situation  between  the
applicant and one particular subordinate.  Although some guidance  was
provided, the Board majority believes that additional intervention may
have precluded the ensuing situation.  The Board majority  also  noted
the letters of  support  and  character  references  provided  by  the
applicant, which state that she was tough, but  fair  and  consistent,
with no indication that she created an adverse work  environment.   In
the Board Majority’s opinion, the applicant’s overall duty performance
outweighs the infractions found by the IG Investigation.  It therefore
appears to the Board majority that the LOR, UIF and referral OPR  were
unduly harsh.  Accordingly, the Board majority  recommends  the  cited
LOR, UIF and referral OPR  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  the
applicant’s records.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the
following issues.

      a.  The Board majority determined that  there  was  insufficient
evidence  to  warrant  corrective  action  regarding  the  applicant’s
request for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).   The  Board
majority noted  that  in  accordance  with  the  governing  Air  Force
instruction, decorations can not be awarded or presented to any person
whose entire service for the period covered has  not  been  honorable.
The Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation  of  the
appropriate Air Force office (HQ AFPC/DPPPR) and adopts the  rationale
expressed as the basis for the decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain her burden that she has suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  In view of the findings of the IG investigation, resulting
in the loss of command, and in the  absence  of  substantive  evidence
that  the  commander’s  actions  were  contrary  to   the   prevailing
instruction or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion, the Board
majority  finds  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend   granting   the
applicant’s request for an end-of-tour decoration.

      b.  The Board noted the applicant’s request to be reassigned  to
a promotable “Air Staff” position/assignment.   In  this  respect,  we
noted the advisory opinion from HQ AFPC/DPASC  indicated  that  future
assignment to a selective Air Staff  assignment  would  be  contingent
upon removal of the applicant’s referral  OPR  and  a  valid  vacancy.
Although the Board majority is recommending the cited referral OPR  be
removed  from  applicant’s  records,  the  Board  believes  that   the
applicant’s reassignment should  be  accomplished  through  Air  Force
assignment processing.  The assignment  of  military  personnel  is  a
prerogative of the Air Force Personnel Center and we  are  constrained
to note that the needs of the service are paramount in  such  actions.
In view of the above and on the basis of the  available  evidence,  we
are not inclined to favorably consider that portion of the applicant’s
request for a specific assignment.

      c.  With regard to  the  applicant’s  contention  that  she  was
denied due process during the IG  investigation,  we  agree  with  the
position of the appropriate Air Force office, HQ USAF/JAG,  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Inasmuch  as  we  have
determined  that  the  applicant  received  due  process  during   the
investigation,  we  do  not  believe  that  an  in  camera  review  is
warranted.  Therefore, absent sufficient evidence to the contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the applicant’s request
for an in camera review.

5.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Letter of Reprimand  (LOR),  dated  21  June  1999,  and
Unfavorable Information File Action established as a  result  of  this
LOR, and any and all references thereto, be declared void and  removed
from her records.

      b.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report,  AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the period 13 June 1998 through 29  June  1999,  and  all
referral documents attached thereto, be declared void and removed from
her records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 June  2001  and  27  August  2001,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member
              Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member

Mr. Hinton and Mrs. Zook voted to correct the record, as  recommended.
Mr. Roj voted to deny the applicant’s stated request and  submitted  a
minority report.  By a  majority  vote,  the  members  voted  to  deny
applicant's request for award of the MSM.  Mrs. Zook  voted  to  grant
the applicant's MSM request but did not desire to  submit  a  minority
report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and
               IG Investigation (withdrawn).
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPASC, dated 28 Aug 00.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, dated 7 Nov 00.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 16 Nov 00, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 1 Dec 00.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Dec 00.
   Exhibit H.  Letter from counsel, dated 11 Jan 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 9 May 01.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 May 01.
   Exhibit K.  Letters from counsel, dated 7 Jun 01 and
                   11 Jun 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit L.  Minority Report.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 00-02224




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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 21 June 1999, and
Unfavorable Information File action established as a result of this
LOR, and any and all references thereto, be, and hereby are, declared
void and removed from her records.

            b.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 13 June 1998 through 29 June 1999, and
all referral documents attached thereto, be, and hereby are, declared
void and removed from her records.

            c.  She was awarded an end-of-tour Meritorious Service
Medal (MSM) for the period 13 June 1997 to 25 May 1999.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

                                        September 25, 2001


MEMORANDUM FOR THE     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT, Docket No:  00-02224

      After reviewing the evidence presented, I disagree with the
majority of the Board that the applicant’s request to void the Letter
of Reprimand (LOR), the Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and the
Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) should be granted.

      The evidence of record reveals that applicant was the subject of
an IG investigation for alleged reprisal of a subordinate.  Due to the
IG findings, she was relieved of command, and received an LOR/UIF and
a referral OPR.  However, prior to the aforementioned, she received a
Letter of Admonishment (LOR) for her unit mismanaging and manipulating
the Weight Management Program (WMP) and the Enlisted Performance
Report (EPR) system.

      With respect to the disciplinary actions (LOR/UIF) and the
referral OPR, I am not sufficiently persuaded that the actions taken
against the applicant were inappropriate.  As to the contested
referral OPR, it appears to be an accurate appraisal of the
applicant’s performance during the period under review.  In coming to
this conclusion, I took note of the substantiated allegations and
believe that, due to the applicant’s leadership and managerial skills,
the work environment may have been overly stressful.  It appears that
she may have abused her position by some of the actions she took
against one particular subordinate.  I question the timing of the
applicant’s actions and the manner in which they were executed.  While
applicant’s superiors may have been aware of the situation, they did
not fully support her actions.  Since she was administered an LOR/UIF
and a referral OPR, this gives credence to the fact that her superiors
believed her conduct was inconsistent with a key Air Force leadership
position and unacceptable.

      In the absence of sufficient evidence that the information used
as a basis for the LOR/UIF was erroneous, there was an abuse of
discretionary authority, or the OPR was technically flawed, I find no
error or injustice.  In my opinion, the LOR/UIF and referral OPR were
not harsh or unjustified.  I therefore recommend that the contested
LOR/UIF and referral OPR remain in the applicant’s records to provide
a representation of the applicant’s performance during this period.




            JOSEPH A. ROJ
            Panel Chair



MEMORANDUM FOR THE     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT, Docket No: 00-02224

      I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and agree
with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the applicant’s
request to void the Letter of Reprimand (LOR), the Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) and the Referral Officer Performance Report
(OPR) should be granted.

      Furthermore, I am in agreement with the minority member of the
panel that the applicant’s request for award of an end-of-tour
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) should also be granted.  In my
opinion, this action is consistent with removal of all of the
derogatory actions.  In arriving at my decision, I am aware that the
courts have held that military correction boards have an abiding moral
sanction to determine what constitutes and error or an injustice and
to take steps to grant full and fitting relief.  In this respect, I
believe that awarding the applicant an end-of-tour MSM, in addition to
the relief recommended by the majority of the panel, provides the
applicant with full and fitting relief.





       JOE G. LINEBERGER

       Director

      Air Force Review Boards Agency