RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01985

            COUNSEL:  FRED L. BAUER

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out 31 August 1997, 31
August 1996, and 31 March 1995 be removed; the denial of  reenlistment
be nullified and he be given full credit for the time since his forced
separation toward retirement, with back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied reenlistment after serving over sixteen  (16)  years  on
active duty, and was forced to separate on 27  October  1998.   Untrue
allegations of sexual and racial  discrimination  unfairly  undermined
him and contributed to a series of  poor  performance  reports.   This
combined with a minor incident concerning his premature viewing of his
EPR led to his being denied reenlistment.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the contested time period, the applicant was serving in  the
Regular Air Force, in the grade on master sergeant.

Applicant was denied reenlistment on 17 Dec 97.  The  Secretary  of
the  Air  Force  denied  his  appeal  to   the   nonselection   for
reenlistment on 24 Aug 98.  He was discharged on 27  Oct  98  after
serving 16 years, 2 months and 5 days total active service.

A profile of the applicant’s EPRs follows:

                   PERIOD ENDINGS                  RATING


                     26 Jul 90                      5


                  7 Jun 91                      5


                 31 Mar 92                      5


                 31 Mar 93                      4


                 31 Mar 94                      5



            *    31 Mar 95                      3


                 31 Mar 96                      5

            *    31 Aug 96                      2 (Referral)

            *    31 Aug 97                      3 (Referral)


* Contested reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military  Personnel  Management  Specialist,  Separations  Branch,
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and  recommended  denial  of  his
request for reinstatement.  This  case  was  reviewed  for  separation
processing and there were  no  errors  or  irregularities  causing  an
injustice to the applicant.  The separation complied  with  directives
in effect at the time  of  the  applicant’s  discharge.   The  records
indicated  the  applicant’s  military   service   was   reviewed   and
appropriate action was taken.  The  applicant  did  not  identify  any
specific errors  in  the  separation  processing  nor  provided  facts
warranting his reinstatement in the Air Force.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Acting Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  the
applicant’s request to void his nonselection and  recommended  denial.
The Commander’s actions were justified in their opinion.   The  action
was based on a sustained pattern of unprofessional demeanor pertaining
to supervisory duties, ability to get along with others,  professional
credibility and integrity.  His inability to get along with others  is
documented in performance reports as far back as 1984.   He  was  also
removed from his supervisory position for creating  an  atmosphere  of
discord and distrust that  was  detrimental  to  the  good  order  and
discipline of his section.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,   reviewed   the
applicant’s request to void the contested EPRs and recommended denial.
 The EPR closing 31 August 1996 was a referral, with an overall rating
of “2” which rendered him ineligible for  promotion  consideration  as
outlined in AFPC/DPMA 0916027Z Msg.   Because he  was  ineligible  for
this cycle, he did not test for promotion.  His next EPR  closing  out
31 Aug 97, was also a referral with an overall rating of “3.”   On  17
December 1997, he  was  nonrecommended  for  reenlistment  which  also
rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration for 98E8 promotion
testing cycle.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

The  Chief,  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  the
application  and  recommended  denial.   The  applicant   was   denied
reenlistment on 17 December 1997 as well as subsequent disapproval  of
appeal to the Secretary of the Air Force on      24  August  1998.   A
review the applicant’s record indicates a pattern of less than stellar
performance   in   the   areas   of   human   relations,   leadership,
communication,   respect   for   authority,   teamwork,   professional
qualities, and integrity.  This trend dates back  to  1984  and  is  a
constant throughout his career.  Ultimately, this history  of  erratic
performance/behavior led to a series of substandard EPRs; the last two
prior to discharge were referral reports.  The reports that closed out
31 August 1997,  31 August 1996, and 31 March 1995 were  reviewed  for
regulatory compliance and validity  of  content.   They  consider  all
reports valid as written; in the case of referral EPRs,  all  referral
procedures were properly adhered to and followed

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel  reviewed  the  advisory  opinions  and  indicated  that   the
government advisories in this case can be summed up as follows:

      Proper Procedures:  There is no denying that a commander can use
the performance report system and their denial of reenlistment  power.
The real question is whether it should have been used the way  it  was
in this case.  They refer the reviewers to their  arguments  in  their
basic package in explaining why the performance reports and the denial
of reenlistment are unfair.

      Support the commanders:  While the commanders  are  entitled  to
the benefit  of  the  doubt  in  close  cases,  they  have  more  than
adequately explained how reverse discrimination  was  the  key  factor
leading up to the applicant’s termination less than four years shy  of
retirement.  Racial discrimination, reverse or otherwise,  along  with
other factors previously addressed, can  never  justify  the  type  of
actions taken in this case against the applicant.

      Alleged difficult personality:  Each of us has known people  who
are outstanding workers but whose  interpersonal  skills  are  not  to
everyone else’s liking.  While it is argued by two of  the  advisories
that evidence of imperfect social skills can be found earlier  in  his
career (when he was an airman first class (AlC) and  senior  airman!),
that evidence was obviously minor in  comparison  to  his  job  skills
since he progressed rapidly up to the grade of master sergeant  (E-7).
Even if you believe he lacks interpersonal skills, the  proper  remedy
is not to wait until he is just shy of retirement and  then  “cut  him
off at the knees.”  The appropriate course of action would be to  deny
a further promotion, limit his supervisory responsibilities (or better
yet, use his remarkable technical skills directly in highly  technical
areas rather than personnel management).   If  this  is  insufficient,
then perhaps a demotion action.  But to do to the applicant  what  was
done here is akin to granting a  weight  waiver  to  a  very  muscular
recruit and then discharging him at the sixteen year point because his
weight is unchanged.  The real “problem” with applicant's  personality
is that he cares about the quality of work that is done, is undeniably
an outstanding mechanic, and has little  patience  for  those  who  do
substandard work.  While one can always  be  more  diplomatic,  it  is
crucial that those who fix our aircraft make sure it is done right…and
the applicant is clearly the “go-to guy” when you need it  done  right
the first time.  One final note on this alleged difficult personality;
please re-read the character letters provided by  senior  NCOs;  these
are the people who really know best what is important in matters  like
these…and they clearly support the applicant.

      Denial of relief:  If the Board believes that the  applicant  is
not suitable for  greater  supervisory  responsibilities,  that  is  a
discretionary matter within their authority.  But the  Board  also  is
entitled to used its judgment  and  see  that  reverse  discrimination
(along with the other problems they  have  previously  cited)  do  not
justify the extreme action of terminating a dedicated NCO  just  short
of retirement.  The government advisory says that he’s had a difficult
personality going back to when he was an airman; is it  fair  to  then
say this is grounds for the maximum penalty after you’ve promoted  him
to E-7 and he’s within hailing distance of retirement?  They would ask
the Board members to take one last look at those  senior  NCOs,  etc.,
who wrote letters in support of him  and  focus  particularly  on  the
unfairness of his Osan performance report.  The  applicant  should  be
allowed to complete a final  enlistment  and  finish  out  his  twenty
years.

A complete copy of counsel’s response is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We  have  reviewed  the
applicant’s contentions and the statements provided with this  appeal.
However, the Board finds  no  persuasive  evidence  showing  that  the
applicant was rated unfairly, that the reports are in error,  or  that
the evaluators were biased and prejudiced against  the  applicant,  as
alleged.   In  this  respect,  the  evaluators  were  responsible  for
assessing the applicant’s performance during the periods  in  question
and  are  presumed  to  have  rendered  evaluations  based  on   their
observation of the applicant’s performance.  The  statements  provided
from individuals outside the applicant’s rating chain are duly  noted;
however, these individuals were not tasked with the responsibility  of
assessing  the  applicant’s  performance  during  the  contested  time
periods.  We note the applicant has not provided statements  from  any
of the evaluators on these reports.  His contentions are  duly  noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of  the
Air Force and adopt the rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that  he
has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 19 April and 30 August 2001, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Lawrence M. Groner, Member
                 Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 July 2000, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Aug 00.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Aug 00.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 11 Sep 00.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Oct 00.
      Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Oct 00.
      Exhibit H. Applicant's/Counsel's response, dated 10 Jan 00.
      Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Apr 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J. Applicant’s/Counsel’s  response,  dated  16  May  00,
                 w/atch’s redacted Social Actions Report.





      TEDDY L. HOUSTON
      Panel Chair