RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00787
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 111.01
            131.00, 136.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

a.  Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period  2  Feb  00
through 10 Jul 00, be removed from her records.

b.  She be awarded the Meritorious Service  Medal  (MSM),  Second  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (2OLC).

c.  She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

d.  Her records be corrected to reflect that she retired  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel with 20 years of active service.

e.  Her honor be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In July 2000,she was removed from command upon five grounds that were  found
to be unsubstantiated in a Commander  Directed  Investigation  (CDI).   Male
commanders whose misconduct was much  more  severe  were  routinely  treated
much more favorably than she was, a fact which was ignored by her  chain  of
command,  the  Inspector  General  (IG),  and  General  Counsel.   Applicant
believes she is the victim of discrimination based on gender.

She was removed from command immediately after the conclusion of a CDI  that
investigated  a  multitude  of  charges  made  against  her  by  a  pair  of
disgruntled senior NCOs.  The investigating  officer  (IO)  determined  that
some of the alleged events had occurred but found no gross violation of  law
or regulation.  He refused to consider the fact that one  of  the  NCOs  had
recently perjured himself under oath during a court martial and  that  other
NCOs questioned  were  ones  she  had  just  disciplined  and  removed  from
supervisory  responsibilities.   Her  command  found  that   five   of   the
allegations warranted a Letter of Admonishment (LOA).

She asked for copies of the documentation used to determine the decision  to
remove her from command, but was refused.  Her commander lost faith  in  her
ability to command because he read and accepted  that  portion  of  the  CDI
referenced in the LOA as well as the rumors that she was  never  made  aware
of or given an opportunity to rebut.  Through  the  Freedom  of  Information
Act (FOIA) process, she was able to review the CDI.  Had her commander  been
informed that the CDI had no basis in law  or  fact,  that  male  commanders
were treated differently from female commanders within his  wing,  and  that
there was no basis in the rumors, there is no  reason  to  believe  that  he
would have continued with the LOA and removed her from command.

Applicant asks that the Board consider and reject each of  the  findings  in
the LOA.  The IO substantiated five allegations that were  not  grounded  in
fact.  In the case of the three Air  Force  Association  (AFA)  allegations,
they were contrary to policy letters issued by the  Chief  of  Staff.   With
respect to her conduct surrounding an AFA golf tournament, the  CDI  alleged
that she applied command pressure to an NCO  to  run  the  golf  tournament.
Both she and the NCO testified that he volunteered  his  services,  however,
because he had been convicted of an embezzlement charge,  the  IO  concluded
that the arrangement was involuntary.  In  the  case  of  the  improper  PRP
certification charge, she was charged with  submitting  undue  and  improper
requests from General K----.  He has been cleared of those charges and  been
confirmed by the  Senate  for  promotion  subsequent  to  her  removal  from
office.

She has previously submitted requests for  relief  to  SAF/IG,  DOD/IG,  and
SAF/GC, however all have refused to look at the validity of  the  underlying
CDI, but instead assumed that it was valid  on  its  face.   Her  letter  to
SAF/GC shows that the LOA was issued without basis,  justice,  or  fairness.
A commander, properly informed of the facts and aware of the Air Force  zero
tolerance policies for sex discrimination would not have  removed  her  from
command.

She submitted an application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board   (ERAB)
to have the OPR removed but her request  was  denied.   Her  July  2000  OPR
should be removed  and  she  should  be  awarded  an  MSM  to  document  the
contributions she made while in command.  Because  she  was  an  outstanding
officer up to the time of her improper removal from command, she  should  be
promoted to lieutenant colonel.  Performance is the basis for promotion  and
there is no documentation to the contrary, only documentation  that  amounts
to personality differences based on differing beliefs and  unfair  judgments
of her personal life and personality.  Since there is no way to replace  the
improper OPR with an OPR that accurately reflects  her  accomplishments  the
only way to make her whole is by promotion.  With a performance gap  created
by a missing OPR, her  chances  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  are
unjustly sabotaged.

Applicant asked that the Board  visit  websites  devoted  to  women  in  the
military and read the briefings on sexual trauma she provided.   She  quotes
an article from the militarywomen.org website which talks about problems  of
sexual harassment and rape, which she has experienced over the  years.   She
provided several witnesses that could have  countered  all  the  allegations
and rumors,  yet  none  of  the  witnesses  were  contacted.   Some  of  the
witnesses  who  tried  to  support  her  vindication   during   the   formal
questioning were  met  by  biased  and  agenda  driven  investigators  whose
obvious purpose was to support the  agenda  of  removing  her  from  command
without regard to the true merits of her case.

In support of her request applicant provided documents associated  with  her
retirement pay estimates, life expectancy information, documents  associated
with her ERAB application, character references, documents  associated  with
her nonselection  for  promotion,  a  recommended  MSM  citation,  documents
associated with her CDI, documents associated with  her  IG  requests,  OPRs
rendered between  1 Feb  99  and  10  Jul  00,  a  sexual  trauma  briefing,
printouts  from  the  militrywoman.org  website,  and  a  letter  from   her
daughter.  Her complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  23
May 85 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active  duty  on  1  Jul  85.
She was integrated into the Regular  Air  Force  on  19  Dec  88.   She  was
progressively promoted to the grade of  major,  having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 97.  She was considered  and  not
selected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  P0500A
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, that convened on 28 Nov 00.

The following is a resume of her OPR profile subsequent to her promotion  to
the grade of major:

            PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

      01 Feb 98  MEETS STANDARDS MS)
      01 Feb 99              (MS)
      01 Feb 00              (MS)
      10 Jul 00 *                 (MS)

* - Contested Report

On 1 Mar 01, applicant requested and received approval, as an  Exception  to
Policy, for  retirement  from  the  Air  Force  under  the  Temporary  Early
Retirement Authority (TERA).  She was retired from the Air Force  on  1  Aug
01.  She had served 16 years, 2 months, and 8 days on active duty.

On 6 Apr 00, the Commander, ---  Support  Group,  directed  that  a  CDI  be
conducted to  investigate  allegations  made  against  the  applicant.   The
allegations include two violations  of  the  Military  Leave  Program,  five
violations of the Joint  Ethics  Regulation,  a  violation  of  the  Private
Organization Program,  six  occasions  of  abuse  of  her  authority,  three
incidents of actions that were unprofessional and unbecoming of an  officer,
and violation of the Nuclear Weapons Reliability Program.   The  CDI  Report
of Investigation and the SAF/IGS Report of Investigation (ROI) are  appended
at Exhibits I and J.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application and recommends  denial.   DPPPR  states
that   the   recommending   official   initiates,   prepares,   and    signs
recommendations   for   decorations.    An   individual   cannot   recommend
himself/herself for a decoration, as the applicant has  done.   AFI  36-2803
clearly states that  an  individual  in  not  automatically  entitled  to  a
decoration  upon  departure  for  another  assignment.    After   thoroughly
reviewing  the  case  for  proper  administration  of   procedures   for   a
recommendation or decision to not recommend the applicant for a  decoration,
no error in procedures  was  found.   Ultimately,  it  is  the  recommending
official’s responsibility to determine if a recommendation for a  decoration
is warranted.  The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C

AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this application and recommends  denial.   DPPPE  states
that the ERAB found the report to be an  accurate  assessment  of  her  duty
performance during the specified time.  She did not provide  any  supporting
documentation  on  her  behalf  to  prove  her  removal  as  commander   and
subsequent documentation on her OPR was unjust.  She has failed to  identify
any discrepancies  with  the  CDI  that  lead  to  her  relief  of  command.
Furthermore, she did not provide supporting  documentation  to  support  her
claim of bias or unfair assessment (see Exhibit D).

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed this application, concurs with the  findings  of  DPPPE,
and recommends denial (see Exhibit E).

AFPC/JA reviewed this application and recommends  denial.   JA  states  that
there is no evidence to support her assertion that the IO was  investigating
her for homosexual conduct.  None of the questions asked  were  designed  to
ferret out any such information.  One  of  the  witnesses  stated  that  she
viewed a picture in which it appeared  she  was  kissing  a  stripper.   The
witness was not certain if the stripper was a man or  a  woman.   The  issue
was  not  pursued  further  by  the  IO  nor  mentioned  in  the  report  or
recommendations.  There is no evidence that any  action  was  taken  against
the applicant as a result of this information.

It would appear that the applicant asks the Board  to  atone  for  years  of
sexual abuse/harassment allegedly heaped upon her and  other  women  in  the
services over a generation.  But, it is not the issue here; nor  is  it  the
charter of the Board to fix societal wrongs.  When considering  her  failure
to submit evidence, especially in  light  of  the  CDI’s  substantiation  of
allegations and the poor state of her unit under  her  leadership,  she  has
failed to meet her burden.

The record shows  that  she  openly  discussed  her  personal  life  in  the
workplace.   Witnesses  suggested  that  they  or   their   coworkers   were
uncomfortable because she discussed her sex life in a graphic manner in  the
workplace.  How a commander presents his/her personal life in the  workplace
can in some cases create a hostile work environment and in some cases  be  a
matter for an IO to pursue.  A commander can forfeit her right to claim  her
personal life enjoys extra protection when she herself brought it  into  the
workplace.  There is no evidence the IO pursued this course or used  matters
alluded to in arriving  at  his  findings  and  conclusions.   There  is  no
evidence that the commander relied on it as  a  basis  for  admonishing  the
applicant.

Her contention that the commander made his  decision  to  relieve  her  from
command based on rumors within the CDI is sheer  speculation  on  her  part.
She has not submitted any evidence to support her  claim  and  there  is  no
evidence that he relied  on  rumors  as  a  basis  for  admonishing  her  or
relieving her from command.  The CDI revealed that her  unit  was  suffering
from broken morale.   The  fact  that  such  bitter  divisiveness  over  the
commander existed in the command ultimately provided a basis  for  relieving
her from command.  There are  no  substantive  or  procedural  criteria  for
relieving an officer from command.  The standard  for  removing  an  officer
from command is a highly discretionary one, when the  superior  loses  faith
in the subordinate.  The commander clearly lost faith in the  applicant  and
memorialized this fact in her performance report.  The applicant has  failed
to present relevant evidence of any error  or  injustice  warranting  relief
(see Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that her  intent  in  submitting  this  application  is  to
facilitate an understanding of how this  environment  could  have  been  the
cause of her unethical removal  of  command  because  of  discrimination  or
reprisal.  She is disappointed that the DPPPE evaluator herself,  has  never
experienced discrimination or harassment or that a female officer could  not
entertain the  possibility  that  she  was  treated  differently  from  male
commanders who got off light for the same documented  regressions  that  she
was alleged to have  done.   She  has  provided  compelling  and  convincing
evidence to explain why the CDI and her removal from command  was  simply  a
subterfuge for executing the personal and political agenda of  the  military
leadership involved.  She notes that  officials  have  called  upon  her  to
submit evidence yet in reality the legal constraints in the case refused  to
allow testimonial evidence and the legal opinion of  the  Secretary  of  the
Air Force (SecAF) during requests for remediation due to a  gag  order  from
general  counsel  (GC).   They  also  refused  to  honor  the  evidence  she
submitted  independent  of  the  SecAF’s  testimony.   She  should  not   be
criticized for failing to submit evidence to support her  request  when  the
military leadership won’t honor it or  bars  a  key  civilian  witness  from
making testimony on her behalf.

She  provided  a  letter  from  the  former  SecAF  supporting   her   early
retirement, which contains  his  opinion  of  her  removal  as  well  as  an
additional letter from him, which should be  the  most  convincing  evidence
that her removal was unjust.  The IG should  have  at  least  reinvestigated
the circumstances surrounding her removal to uncover the real  truths.   The
fact that military leadership neglected  to  provide  this  basic  right  of
reinvestigation and fair consideration of  the  evidence  she  submitted  is
evidence that is was not her but the military leadership that  failed.   She
was removed because of  discrimination  and  the  wing  leadership  reprised
against her for supporting lenient  sentences  and  rehabilitation  for  two
members that were court martialed.  The process of her removal could not  be
halted or reversed because AETC and the Air Force closed  ranks  behind  the
wing and the GC forced the SecAF to not  intervene  due  to  their  personal
relationship.

She and the former SecAF became close and  personal  friends  prior  to  her
removal.  He was in constant contact with her  throughout  the  entire  time
and  knew  first-hand  that  her  removal  was  unjust.   At  an  Air  Force
Association (AFA) event in her local area he was deluged with  the  opinions
of her unit members that she was the best commander  they  had  ever  served
under and that  she  was  being  treated  very  unfairly.   The  unfavorable
testimony rendered in the CDI came from a minority of the unit  members  who
were pressured by the IO  for a determined outcome as well as  by  two  unit
supervisors who made complaints against her  and  were  indorsing  officials
for their performance reports.  The former SecAF  was  a  prominent  defense
attorney who knows the law and followed her case from start to finish.   His
testimony should totally absolve her and give an unconditional  green  light
for reparation.

Applicant states that she served her country well while she  was  on  active
duty and nothing she did warrants  the  injustice  she  received.   She  did
outstanding work and deserves credit for it.   The  documents  she  provided
should satisfy good cause for granting her requests.   Her  ego  can  manage
the lack of the MSMs or favorable OPR but she simply  cannot  and  will  not
accept the fact that these injustices led to her nonselection for  promotion
and ultimately her inability to provide a financial future for her  daughter
who does not deserve the consequences forced upon her by the  unprofessional
conduct of the officers involved in this case.   While  she  did  accept  an
early retirement, she could not have stayed on active duty and  had  a  fair
chance for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  above-the-zone  due  to  the
residual political effects of her  removal.   She  still  prefers  that  the
decision to promote her be made by other than  an  SSB  and  asks  that  the
Board render a final decision on her case due to the number of  people  that
have already formed a negative opinion of her.

She states that she loved  the  Air  Force  and  it  showed.   There  is  no
evidence that she did not  perform  the  mission  of  her  unit.   The  only
confidence that the wing lost in her ability to command was the  expectation
that she would support them in their unethical  attempts  to  devastate  the
lives of a gay man and a man with a gambling problem  and  a  special  needs
child.  The basic “whole  person”  concept  still  governs  how  she  treats
others.  There had  to  be  a  balanced  approach  and  the  military  judge
supported  her  recommendations  in  court   for   reasonable   lengths   of
incarceration with  rehabilitation  as  the  goal.   It  is  unfair  that  a
philosophical difference of opinion  be  allowed  to  stand  as  reason  for
denying what she has earned.  Rejection of  her  request  is  equivalent  to
supporting several double standards to include  the  disparity  in  expected
behavior of general officers  and  those  of  lesser  rank  and  the  double
standard as it relates to gender treatment.

In support of her request applicant provided letters of  support,  a  record
of performance  with  her  last  supervisor,  a  draft  MSM  and  narrative,
estimates of her retirement income  losses,  and  copies  of  documents  she
previously submitted.  Her complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  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  took  notice   of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.   Her
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not  find  these  assertions,  in
and by themselves, sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  evidence  of
record or the rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record,  we  see
no evidence that there were any improprieties in  the  commander's  decision
to relieve her of command or that her  commander  abused  his  discretionary
authority in doing so.  We find no evidence that would lead  us  to  believe
that she was reprised against and, it is our opinion  that  her  contentions
of reprisal are unsubstantiated.  We agree with the findings of  the  DoD/IG
that while some of the allegations  against  the  applicant  may  have  been
found to be unsubstantiated, the totality of  the  allegations  against  her
were sufficient enough to cause a lost of faith in her ability  to  command.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find
no compelling  basis  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 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  Docket  Number  01-00787  in
Executive Session on 21 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Aug 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Aug 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 3 Oct 01.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 May 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Commander Directed Report of Investigation,
                dated 2 May 00 - WITHDRAWN
    Exhibit J.  SAF/IGS Report of Investigation,
                dated October 2000 - WITHDRAWN





                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair