RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00575
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

a.  His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period  6
Jul 99 through 3 Nov 99 be removed from his records.

b.  His OPR rendered for the period 4 Nov 99 through 9 Nov 00 be amended  to
include a command recommendation in  Block  VI,  Rater  Overall  Assessment;
and, in Block VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment.

c.  His OPR rendered for the period 10 Nov 00 through 9 Nov 01 be  corrected
to revise the "top  10%..."  stratification  in  Block  VII,  at  701  WG/CC
discretion, if the referral OPR is deleted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Shortly after taking  command,  he  was  served  with  a  restraining  order
initiated by his estranged wife in front of members of his command  section.
 A base security forces officer, who later admitted that  he  violated  base
procedures designed to protect privacy, oversaw the  delivery  process.   In
order to control rumors, he felt compelled to tell members  of  his  command
section and key staff that as his attorney told him, the  restraining  order
was a common divorce tactic that would be withdrawn  when  challenged.   The
squadron section commander working under his command, second Lieutenant  S--
, informally complained that he had used  profanity  in  the  workplace  and
that he was too gruff.  He was  called  to  the  group  commander’s  office,
Colonel W--, after she had received  a  call  from  Colonel  S--,  the  wing
commander, expressing concerns  about  his  command  climate.   Colonel  W--
interviewed members of his command  section  and  other  key  personnel  and
advised him that her inquiry confirmed that his unit had a backlash  to  his
firm style.  He was verbally counseled and told to avoid  swearing  and  was
told that the matter was considered closed.

A few days later he was advised by Colonel W--  that  Colonel  S--  was  not
going to let the matter go and to expect another inquiry.   He  was  led  to
believe that the  other  inquiry  would  be  a  low  threat  Military  Equal
Opportunity (MEO) investigation.  However,  he  later  discovered  that  the
inquiry  was  a  Commander  Directed  Investigation   (CDI).    During   his
interview, he read the letter he prepared objecting to  the  second  inquiry
and was told by the investigating officer  (IO) "Bob, you don't want  to  go
there; you'll just piss Colonel S-- off."  He recognized  the  IO's  warning
as  a  corruption  of  due  process  and  evidence  of  a  fearful   command
atmosphere.  (After his interview, the IO  concluded,  off-the-record,  that
he was persuaded that the applicant was innocent of any actionable  mistakes
- the same conclusion reached by Colonel W--.)

He was later rebuked by Colonel W-- because Colonel S-- had called her in
anger when she  heard  of  his  expression  of  astonishment  to  another
individual about the decision to initiate a CDI and that  Lieutenant  S--
had referred to the alleged sexual harassment in the form of  a  "fighter
pilot story" at her wedding reception.  He repeated  the  story  verbatim
and Colonel W-- did not seem impressed by the compliment he received from
Lieutenant S-- for what  "great  stories"  he  told.   In  spite  of  the
inconsistency, Colonel W-- told him that he should not have gone  to  the
reception in light of the ongoing CDI.

On 3 Nov 99, Colonel W-- fired him for jokingly  referring  to  his  best
officer, Captain P--, as a "well  known  male  homosexual."   Except  for
Colonel W--, all persons present laughed heartily.  Captain P-- reassured
her that he certainly considered it as jocular and was  not  offended  by
it.  It did not matter that he was referred to in that same manner at his
previous assignment.  Being teased meant being respected.  At the time of
his firing he was presented with a letter of reprimand (LOR).  He  signed
it without reading it, as a silent objection to the death of  his  career
as well as his fear of Colonel S--'s reaction to a challenge.

Several months after his departure he received a referral OPR  from  Colonel
W-- directing his rebuttal,  if  any,  to  Colonel  (now  Brigadier  General
select) Steele.  The dialogue in his OPR criticized him  for  "inappropriate
dialogue with subordinates and coworkers."  If that was in reference to  the
swearing he had done, Colonel W-- had found great fault where she  had  only
found minor fault earlier.  If it was  in  reference  to  the  conversations
with his subordinates to control false rumors about his  restraining  order,
then he wonders why she did not raise the matter as an issue at the time  of
her inquiry or letter of  counseling.   A  few  months  after  submitting  a
rebuttal, he  filed  a  formal  Inspector  General  (IG)  complaint  against
Colonel S--.  Part of his reason for doing so was the first-hand  report  by
the Goodfellow AFB IG that he had  been  thwarted  by  Colonel  S--  in  the
conduct of an investigation which he regarded as his duty to  perform.   The
IG package included a statement from a  fellow  squadron  commander  stating
that on the day he (LtCol W--) got fired Colonel W--  in  a  phone  call  to
Colonel S-- reported his "well known male homosexual" comment, was  told  by
Col Steele "What are you going to do  about  this  colonel?"   The  squadron
commander stated that he felt that Colonel  W--  felt  immense  pressure  to
take extreme action.

The primary argument to delete the referral OPR is detailed in his  rebuttal
to the OPR and in his IG  complaint.   He  fully  articulated  his  coercion
argument  and  abuse  of  power  specifications.   SAF/IGS   dismissed   his
complaint citing an  internal  complaint  analysis  (not  an  investigation)
which concluded that Colonel S--'s exercise of power did  not  rise  to  the
level of "arbitrary and capricious."  SAF/IGS  concluded  that  Colonel  W--
acted alone in her decision to relieve him of command - the act that led  to
his referral OPR.  Arguably, Colonel W--  may  have  actually  believed  she
made her own decision, but she made that  decision  on  the  basis  of  very
questionable facts from a junior officer with motive to lie and from second-
hand facts pressed on her by an angry wing commander who had just  initiated
a CDI over her objections.  The CDI, like Colonel  W--'s  inquiry,  made  no
findings.  Colonel S--  wrote  the  officer  conducting  the  CDI  that  she
disagreed with his conclusion.

In support of his request, applicant provided documents associated with  his
referral OPR, his OPR closing on 9 Nov 00, documents associated with his  IG
complaint, a Washington Post newspaper article,  documents  associated  with
his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiries, statements of support,  and
documents associated with his ERAB appeal.  His  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant
was appointed a second lieutenant Reserve of the Air Force on  4  Feb  81
and was subsequently ordered to extended active duty on 26  Mar  86.   He
has been progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Feb  98.
He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 30 Mar 89.

On 1 Oct 99, the Commander, 17th Training  Wing,  directed  that  a  CDI  be
conducted to  investigate  allegations  made  against  the  applicant.   The
allegations were that he acted with misconduct to create an unduly,  hostile
environment through the use  of  profanity  and  demeaning  or  antagonistic
behavior toward his subordinates.  The CDI  Investigating  Officer's  report
is at Exhibit F.  A complete copy of the CDI is available for  your  viewing
upon your request.

The following is a resume of the applicant's recent OPR profile:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION
              09 Nov 01           Meets Standards (MS)
            09 Nov 00             MS
            03 Nov 99        Does Not Meet Standards
            07 Jun 99             MS
            07 Jun 98             MS
            12 Dec 97        Training Report
            07 Jun 97             MS

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPPE
states that the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  denied  his  request
because he did not provide documentation  that  substantiated  the  referral
OPR is inaccurate or unjust.  In  addition,  the  ERAB  is  prohibited  from
changing the evaluator's comments in the OPRs closing 9 Nov 00 and 9 Nov  01
if the evaluator does not support the change.   The  OPRs  are  accurate  as
written.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  responded  and  states  that  he  never  disputed  that  he  made
mistakes.  None  of  those  mistakes  involved  a  breach  of  integrity  or
dereliction of duty.  They were made at a  time  of  extraordinary  personal
duress of working 14 hour days to prepare for a major  inspection  scheduled
5 months after assumption of command, reeling the  unexpected  departure  of
his ex-wife and daughter and the hardball tactics of  her  lawyer,  grieving
the sudden death of his uncle, and defending himself from charges of  sexual
harassment from a lieutenant with a history of specious  complaints  against
her male commanders.  He never disputed whether his  next  higher  commander
had a right to fire him under the broad auspices of "no confidence."

What he disputes is whether the decision to fire him was made without  undue
influence by a wing commander with a  well-deserved  reputation  for  strict
authoritarianism,  harsh  penalties  for   first-time   offenses   -   often
overturned by her superiors, overt religiousness which others have  formally
stated may have regarded his state of divorce and occasional profanity  with
fundamental disdain, and a political correctness that had the edge of  anger
for racial slights she suffered as a child.

He disagrees with DPPPE that there is no evidence  of  error  or  injustice.
While there is no video evidence  of  unlawful  command  influence  and  the
other charged specifications of her abuse of power,  four  separate  letters
by responsible leaders on  Goodfellow,  AFB,  who  were  on  scene  provided
consistent circumstantial evidence.  His complete submission is  at  Exhibit
E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice warranting voidance  of  the  contested  OPR
closing 3 Nov 1999 from  his  records.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence presented, we believe that reasonable doubt  has  been  established
as to the fairness of the contested report and whether or not the report  is
an honest and accurate depiction of his overall performance during the  time
period  in  question.   While  the  applicant  has  admittedly   made   some
judgmental mistakes, it  is  our  opinion  that  based  on  the  applicant's
overall  performance  and  the  significant  improvement  in   the   overall
performance of his unit, it appears that his chain-of-command perhaps  acted
overzealously  in  deciding  to  perpetuate  the  disciplinary  actions   by
rendering him a referral OPR.  Evidence presented by the applicant  has  led
us to believe that the decision may have been predicated  by  factors  other
than his performance.  Accordingly, it is our  opinion  that  any  doubt  in
this matter should be resolved in his favor and that  the  contested  report
closing 3 Nov 99 should be removed from his records.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice regarding his  requests  to  amend  his  OPR
closing 9 Nov 00 and 9 Nov 01.   In  this  regard,  evidence  has  not  been
provided which would lead us to  believe  that  there  were  any  errors  or
improprieties in  the  preparation  of  these  two  reports;  or,  that  his
supervisors  abused  their  discretionary  authority.   We  note  that   the
applicant has not provided evidence from his rating  chain  indicating  that
they concur with the requested changes.  In the absence  of  such  evidence,
favorable consideration of his request  is  not  warranted.   Therefore,  we
agree with the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice in  this  matter.   In  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
that portion of his requested relief.

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.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Officer  Performance  Report,  AF
Form 707A, rendered for the period 6 July 1999 through 3 November  1999,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  02-00575  in
Executive Session on 20 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

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


All Exhibits should be listed here


     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Mar 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Apr 02.
     Exhibit F.  Commander Directed Report of Investigation,
                 dated 14 Dec 02 - WITHDRAWN




                             OLGA M. CRERAR
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-00575




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 the Officer Performance
Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 6 July 1999 through 3
November 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records.








  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency