RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03171

                                  COUNSEL:  Mr. Eugene R. Fidell

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period  3
July 1998 to 2 July 1999 be amended in Section VII by deleting the  comments
“ISS in residence is a must.”

2.  Amend Section VI to include a promotion or stratification statement.

3.  The PRF prepared  for  the  CY1999B  selection  board  be  corrected  to
reflect a  “Definite Promote” recommendation.

4.  Direct promotion to the grade of Lt Colonel or in the alternate:

            a.  All nonselections be removed.

            b.  Consideration by Special Selection  Board  and  furnished  a
memorandum indicating that because of previous career injury.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1998, the applicant became the Family Advocacy (FA) Element Leader at ---
 AB.  Because of “perfect  storm”  conditions,  she  wound  up  facing  what
amounted to a mutiny among some of her new  staff.   The  effects  were  and
continued to be, devastating for her career.

At --- AB, the applicant succeeded an officer  who  had  what  can  only  be
described as a relaxed management style.   Not  surprisingly,  he  was  very
popular  with  the  staff.   Her  own  management  style  was  more  in  the
conventional Air Force mode.  The  staff  viewed  her  with  suspicion  even
before she arrived, going so far as to make telephone  calls  to  her  prior
command in order to gather intelligence on her.

The FA staff was not particularly hard working, and the  applicant’s  energy
proved to be an unpleasant innovation.   Disrespect  became  rampant  (e.g.,
one  subordinate  wore  a  shirt  that  advised  folks  that  his  “boss  is
clueless”).  There were serious  problems  of  inappropriate  conduct.   One
member of the staff had established a blatantly  inappropriate  relationship
with a patient (or “client,” in social  work  parlance).   If  fell  to  the
applicant to take action to bring that relationship to  a  halt  and  report
the matter  to  state  licensing  authorities  in  Texas.   There  was  also
evidence that one of the  officers  on  staff,  the  applicant’s  boss,  was
engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.

Coupled with and aggravating the pervasive indiscipline in the  FA  Program,
the applicant’s superior maintained an open-door  policy,  which  encouraged
her subordinates to violate the  chain  of  command.   This  policy  further
eroded her position.

Eventually, the applicant was removed from her  position,  long  before  she
had completed her  tour  and  reassigned  as  acting  Deputy  Support  Group
Commander, --- AB.  When the  permanent  Deputy  returned,  she  became  the
Coordinator  of  Individual  and  Family   Integrated   Services   and   the
Educational Clearance Tiger Team for the ---- Military Community.

On 5 May 1999, she submitted a complaint to  the  USAFE  Inspector  General,
maintaining, among other things that her removal was  in  reprisal  for  her
having undertaken a unit self-assessment, which functioned  as  a  protected
disclosure.  She also complained that she was  the  victim  of  gender-based
discrimination because a male officer, junior to  her  on  the  active  duty
list, was promoted over her to the  position  of  deputy  commander  of  the
Mental Health Flight.  She complained,  as  well,  that  she  had  not  been
afforded performance feedback within the prescribed  period.   (When,  after
she complained, that  feedback  was  belatedly  furnished  to  her  and  was
accompanied by  a  letter  of  counseling.   Also,  a  second,  nonscheduled
feedback session was provided to her the day before she was removed and  was
conducted with a third-party present, contrary to  AFI  36-2406.)   Feedback
is designed  to  facilitate  improvement  and  mentor  the  member,  not  to
document a rationale for removing the member from a position.   It  is  also
noteworthy that when the second feedback was written, only two months  after
the first one,  a  vast  difference  was  noted  in  her  performance.   Her
supervisor’s only explanation for this discrepancy was that he  was  unaware
he could have marked the applicant down so far in the initial feedback.

The applicant has been able to obtain only a redacted copy of  the  ---  Air
Force Inspector General Report (IG) and she assumes the Board will  be  able
to obtain the complete document.  From the redacted version, however, it  is
clear that parts of her complaint were found to be substantiated, and  parts
were found to be  unsubstantiated.   A  copy  of  the  redacted  version  is
attached.  The  IG  concluded  that  the  self-assessment  was  a  protected
disclosure that adverse action was taken thereafter  by  an  individual  who
was aware of the disclosure,  but  that  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence
indicates that the same action-removal-would have occurred in any event.

The IG investigation reported that five  reasons  had  been  cited  for  the
applicant’s dismissal.  A few words are in order for each.

The first was an allegation of dishonesty.  Because of heavy  redactions  in
the pertinent paragraph, the applicant is unable to fully  respond  to  this
serious claim.  However, it should be  noted  that  the  investigator  never
personally concluded that the allegation was  accurate,  only  that  it  had
been made.  One source  on  this  matter  appears  not  even  to  have  been
interviewed.  The only specifics we have been able to find in the  materials
released to her are in paragraph 6 under the Analysis of Allegation 2.

Two instances are cited.  One is an assertion  that  the  applicant  falsely
denied having been concerned by the command’s failure to use  date  of  rank
as the criterion for selecting a new Deputy Commander of the  Mental  Health
Flight.  The other is an  assertion  that  she  had  falsely  denied  having
threatened subordinates with dismissal.  Neither of these allegations  is  a
plausible basis for removing the applicant from her position.

On the former, the applicant  was  approached  by  another  officer  in  the
mental health clinic, Maj P__,  who  complained  to  her  that  gender-based
decisions were being made in the clinic, to include  designation  of  junior
male officers to stand in for the male deputy when that officer was on  TDY.
  The  applicant  responded  that  this  was  interesting  and,  since   she
(applicant), being new, was unaware of the staff’s dates of rank, asked  who
was senior to whom.  Maj P__ told her that she (applicant)  was  the  senior
major within the flight, clearly suggesting that she should  have  been  the
one designated to act  as  deputy.   The  applicant  did  nothing  with  the
information concerning dates of rank, and was astounded,  some  time  later,
to receive an email from Col T__, the squadron commander,  advising  her  to
“stop  whining”  about  the  matter--something  she  had  never  done.   The
applicant went to see Lt Col B__, the mental  health  flight  commander,  to
find out what Col T__ was referring  to,  and  gathered  that  Maj  P__  had
report their private conversation--a conversation initiated by  Maj  P__--in
a distorted fashion that conveyed the  impression  that  the  applicant  was
disgruntled on the subject.  In  fact,  although  she  understood  that  she
would not asked to serve as acting deputy immediately upon  her  arrival  at
the unit, she was surprised that the command continued to  disregard  normal
seniority practices after she had been there for some  time.   She  had  not
made an issue of it, although as time passed she certainly had  a  basis  to
complain.  To accuse her of falsely  denying  anything  on  these  facts  is
outrageous.  It is also noteworthy that the ---  IG  report  indicates  that
Maj P__ and Lt Col B__ admitted that they “shared a bed” when traveling.
The other  alleged  lie  had  to  do  with  falsely  denying  that  she  had
threatened a  subordinate  with  dismissal.   Here  again,  the  facts  show
nothing of the kind.  At the time she was at  Family  Advocacy,  there  were
roughly 13 civil service professional or paraprofessional  staff  positions.
They were going to be outsourced to  a  government  contractor,  Chesapeake.
One of the civil service employees was Mr. O__, whose misconduct  represents
a major theme in this case.  The applicant discussed  with  this  supervisor
(Capt Mc__) on several occasions that all of these  positions  would  likely
be outsourced to Chesapeake.  There was no threat  to  dismiss  Mr.  O__  or
anyone else, but simple a statement of fact regarding the  unit’s  personnel
strategy.  In the end, his position, along  with  all  of  the  others,  was
indeed outsourced, although he, like the others, remained  in  his  position
as a contractor employee.  The applicant  never  threatened  him  or  anyone
else, and her denial that  she  had  threatened  him  or  anyone  else  with
dismissal was and is true.  Obviously, Mr. O__, whose  “rice  bowl”  was  at
risk  of  being  broken  as  part  of  the  command’s  shift  to  contractor
personnel, had every incentive to make trouble,  which  he  did.   The  fact
remains, however, that a dismissal of Mr. O__ or any other staff member  for
cause was well within the applicant’s responsibility as element  leader  and
indeed an option, albeit one that she never exercised.

The second reason relied on for the proposition  that  the  applicant  would
have been removed in any event is what has been referred to  as  “the  force
protection issue at Potzberg castle.”  This is, if anything, even more of  a
nonstarter as a  justification  for  her  removal  than  the  alleged  false
denials.

The facts, in a nutshell, were that the applicant had arranged  to  have  an
offsite  training  session  for  staff  at  this  facility.   There  was  no
terrorism alert in effect at the time.  There  was  simply  a  concern  that
United States personnel remain alert, use  common  sense,  and  avoid  large
crowds and apparent demonstrations.  More to the point, apparently, four  of
the FA staff (led by Mr. O__) claimed to be annoyed at her because the  plan
contemplated that each participant would have had to pay the  grand  sum  of
40 deutschmarks (DM) to cover lunch and snacks--equal to about  $20  dollars
at the time.  On the security aspect, this was transparently  not  a  firing
offense or indeed, any kind of offense at all; a  word  to  the  wise  would
have been more than ample.  The real casus belli  seems  to  have  been  Mr.
O__’s clique’s annoyance at theoretically incurring a  very  minor  expense.
Again, this is nothing like a firing  offense  for  a  0-4  element  leader.
Indeed, the telling thing about the  Potzberg  Castle  episode  is  that  it
shows just how difficult it was to make any headway with the FA staff;  this
was supposed to be a “team building session,” and they--or rather,  a  small
group of them--turned it into yet another way to  torpedo  their  commander.
Of note, the  departure  party  for  the  easygoing  and  therefore  popular
officer the applicant relieved was held at Potzberg Castle  and  involved  a
per capita charge in excess of 40DM.

The  third  proffered  reason  was  “[t]ension  and  disruption  in  the  FA
element.”  If all one knew was that  there  was  “tension  and  disruption,”
further inquiry would be warranted to identify the cause of  the  condition.
As  we  will  explain  in  a  moment,  further  inquiry--done  by  the  IG’s
investigator--rules this out as a basis for dismissal.

The fourth proffered reason concerned certain  recommendations.   The  Board
may find if difficult to address this on the merits because  the  IG  report
has been so heavily redacted that it is impossible to  tell  what  is  being
referred to.  In fact, this part  of  the  rationale  has  to  do  with  the
applicant’s concern that Lt Col B__ had provided professional assistance  to
the son of his own superior (the Medical Group Commander)  in  violation  of
professional norms.  The investigating officer  suggests  this  practice  of
dual relationship is  “acceptable  in  small  communities  and  professional
settings.”  However, that description can  hardly  be  applied  to  the  ---
Military Community, which had a population  of  more  than  45,000  military
beneficiaries and approximately a  dozen  available  military  and  civilian
psychiatrists.  In a community of that size, for an  officer  to  treat  his
own commander’s child does not fall within  any  small-community  exception.
The investigating officer also notes that there was a special  role  between
Lt Col B__ and Col W__, but could not ascertain whether  that  special  role
serve to protect Lt Col B__.  But all this proves to  be  beside  the  point
because,  whether   or   not   the   applicant’s   concerns)   and   related
recommendations) were  well-founded,  the  investigating  officer  concluded
that although this fourth reason for reassignment was among those found  not
to have been based on reprisal, “the  applicant’s  arriving  at  that  point
[i.e., removal] is a direct product  of  [her]  lack  of  ongoing  effective
supervision and feedback by management and therefore is  unfair  and  unjust
considering everything as a whole.”

The fifth reason offered as a justification for  the  applicant’s  removal--
failure “to maintain emotional detachment from patients’” in her role  as  a
mental health provider--was not seen as a  valid  reason  for  reassignment,
according to the investigator.  The  investigator  cryptically  referred  to
the matter as “problematic,” but in this respect he  was  mistaken,  as  his
report elsewhere explains that  she  was  nothing  more  than  appropriately
persistent and dedicated to patient needs, and that  her  judgment  in  that
regard had been vindicated.  In any event, even he did not think this was  a
valid basis for removal.

The investigator’s conclusion that there was  no  evidence  of  gender-based
discrimination is suspect.  Specifically, the applicant pointed to the  fact
that she was passed over for acting Deputy Flight Chief in favor of  a  male
officer who was junior to her.  Nothing in  the  investigation  demonstrates
that disregard of dates of rank in  making  such  assignments  was  part  of
pattern or practice.  Accordingly, it was improper to reject  her  complaint
that gender played  an  impermissible  role  in  this  piece  of  the  case.
Equally unpersuasive is the investigator’s conclusion that gender played  no
role  in  the  applicant’s  dismissal  because  a  male  officer   who   had
experienced management problems was not reassigned, on the notion  that  the
officer’s management issue  was  uninvolvement  rather  than  overinvolement
(said to be the problem with the applicant).   In  her  September  25,  2000
supplement to her IG complaint, she identified and  furnished  details  with
respect to a variety of other  instances  of  discrimination  against  women
with the command.  The instances she cited stand unrebutted.  At  least  one
of the officers has already received relief from the AFBCMR.

Finally,  in  reaching  the  conclusion  that  there  was  no   gender-based
discrimination,  the  investigator  appears  to  have  overlooked  his   own
observation, in the last paragraph of his Analysis  of  Allegation  8,  that
lack of recognition was a more pronounced response  among  women  at  Family
Advocacy than among men.

Taking these three points together, the IG’s conclusion that gender did  not
play a material role in the treatment of which the applicant  was  subjected
cannot be accepted.

This leaves for discussion the matter of “[t]ension and  disruption  in  the
element.”  It turns out that this is at the heart of  the  case,  and  here,
far from providing a justification for the applicant’s  removal,  the  facts
and the IG’s own analysis, demonstrate that the entire  setting  was  deeply
unfair--whether viewed as  a  gender-based  matter  or  as  simple,  garden-
variety injustice.

It hardly needs elaboration to see why the  circumstances  under  which  the
applicant had to function at Ramstein set her up for  failure.   Given  this
grim summary, it is no wonder that she failed to be selected  when  she  met
the promotion board.

The  circumstances  described  impacted   on   the   applicant’s   promotion
recommendation for the 0599B board.   The  all-important  concluding  words-
again, only four  in  number--were  “leadership  skills  require  maturing.”
These were obviously damning and the results were entirely predictable.   It
is impossible to divorce  those  words--which  were  plainly  calculated  to
counteract the ostensible recommendation  that  she  be  promoted--from  the
circumstances so vividly and cogently described by  the  IG’s  investigator.
Those circumstances were unfair, and the PRF was as well.

These are not the only errors and injustices,  however  (although  they  are
more than ample to mandate relief).  The  applicant’s  OPR  for  the  period
ending July 2, 1999, included this final  comment  in  block  VII:  “ISS  in
residence is a must.”  Such a comment is inappropriate  for  an  officer  in
her pay grade, and was prejudicial each time she has met a promotion  board.
 In block VI, Lt Col B__ purposely leaves out a promotion or  stratification
statement in his final line.  The OPR should be corrected, and each  of  the
applicant’s failures of selection removed.  Her record  was  also  incorrect
in that her duty history did not  reference  her  family  advocacy  position
when she met the Lt Col boards.

This is an appropriate case for direct  promotion  relief.   The  Board  has
granted such relief in the past where an officer suffers career injury  that
inherently does not lend itself  to  correction  through  normal  means,  or
where the normal means have simply  proven  unequal  to  the  task.   Direct
promotion relief is warranted here because the applicant’s  removal  as  the
element leader of the ---  Family  Advocacy  Program  has  had  an  enduring
adverse impact on her right to fair consideration for promotion ever since.

Since the time she was forced  out  of  that  position,  the  applicant  has
received one outstanding OPR  after  another  as  well  as  other  forms  of
recognition for her excellent performance  of  duty,  yet  she  has  had  no
success getting selected for  lieutenant  colonel.   For  example,  the  ---
Medical Operations Squadron selected  her  as  a  Squadron  Officer  of  the
Quarter in April 2002, and on February 4, 2003, she was  notified  that  she
had been selected as Social Worker of  the  Year  (2002)  for  her  command.
Nonetheless, she was passed over yet again by the Calendar Year 2002 Board.

In support of her request, applicant provided her counsel’s legal  brief,  a
copy of the formal complaint, with  numerous  attachments,  and  a  redacted
copy of the IG Report.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
major.

Applicant has four nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel  by  the
Calendar Years 1999B, 2000A, 2001B, and 2002B,  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central
Selection Boards.

The  applicant  filed  an  appeal  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Report,   for   the   P0599B
Performance Recommendation Form; however, it  was  returned  without  action
with the recommendation that  she  reapply  after  the  results  of  the  IG
investigation.

During the period in question,  the  applicant  was  the  element  chief  of
Family Advocacy, --Medical Group at ---  AB  ---  from  28  July  until  her
removal on 7  April  1999.   She  was  removed  and  reassigned  as  special
assistant to the -- Support Group commander.

On 5 May 1999 and 25 September 2000, the applicant filed  a  complaint  with
the Inspector General’s (IG) office at --- AB, ---.  The  applicant  alleged
mismanagement,  reprisal,  perceived  favoritism,   gender   discrimination;
inappropriate relationships; and subversive behaviors by people  within  her
element, that were permitted by  management,  that  ultimately  led  to  the
unraveling of good order and discipline in the Family Advocacy element.

In response to applicant’s 5 May 1999 and 25  September  2000  complaint  to
the HQ --- Air  Force  Inspector  General,  concerning  reprisal,  incorrect
performance feedback, gender discrimination,  and  unprofessional  relations
was conducted on 12 October 1999.  The DoD IG, on 20 October 2000  concurred
with the HQ ---/IG report that the investigation did  not  substantiate  any
of the allegations except  for  the  allegations  of  delayed  feedback  and
improper feedback (see HQ ---/IGQ Report at Exhibit C).

Applicant has received eight OPR's since he was promoted  to  the  grade  of
major, all of which reflects "Meets Standards."

_________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial and states the applicant did  not  provide  any
credible evidence specifically addressing the lack of stratification on  the
2 July 1999 OPR.  Actually, if the  rater  did  not  believe  the  applicant
deserved a stratification he was not required to provide it.   Further,  the
applicant mentions there was no promotion statement on  the  report.   While
this  is  an  accurate  statement,  AFI  36-2402,  para   1.4.1,   prohibits
recommendations  on  officer  performance  reports.    As   such,   it   was
appropriate for the evaluators not to include any promotion  recommendations
on the contested report.  Also, the applicant was still eligible for ISS  in
residence  at  the  time  the   report   closed   out.    Accordingly,   the
recommendation for ISS, while optional,  was  appropriate.   Simply  because
the applicant is not happy with the way the report turned out does not  make
it inaccurate.  It could be, in fact, accurate that  the  rater  “purposely”
left out a  stratification  statement;  however,  such  statements  are  not
mandatory in performance reports.  It is the rating chain’s  decision  based
on their assessment on what statements to include-not the member’s.

While the applicant has  requested  a  new  PRF  that  “properly  notes  her
successes,” a revised PRF has not been provided and it isn’t  clear  exactly
who the applicant believes would be in a position to render  a  new  report.
This point is actually somewhat moot, since  the  applicant’s  own  evidence
from HQ USAFE/IGQ clearly indicates a  formal  investigation  was  conducted
and “there was insufficient evidence that reprisal occurred.”

The applicant did not prove any of her contentions.   Evidence  is  required
to prove contentions that a report is erroneous and in this  case  none  was
provided.  Again, on the contested July 1999  OPR,  the  ISS  recommendation
was  appropriate,  the  stratification  statement  was  optional,  and   the
promotion recommendation was prohibited.  As for  the  P0500B  PRF,  the  IG
investigation found no reprisal took place.

AFPC/DPPPE complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial and states that through counsel, the  applicant
contends that her  duty  history  did  not  reference  her  Family  Advocacy
position when she met the lieutenant colonel boards.  However,  we  reviewed
her P0599B, P0500A, P0501B, and P0501B officer selection briefs  (OSBs)  and
found that they all reflected her duty title  as  “Family  Advocacy  Element
Leader.”  Therefore, SSB consideration is not warranted on this issue.

Regarding the request for direct promotion, both Congress and DoD have  made
clear their intent that when  errors  are  perceived  to  ultimately  affect
promotion, they should be addressed and resolved through the  use  of  SSBs.
See 10 U.S.C. 628(b), DoD Directive 1320.11 para D.1. and Air Force  policy,
which mirrors that position in AFI  36-2501,  Chapter  6.   When  many  good
officers are competing records and an  appreciation  of  their  content,  we
continue to believe the practice of sending cases to  SSBs  is  the  fairest
and best practice.  In the past, and hopefully in  the  future,  the  AFBCMR
will consider direct promotion only in the most extraordinary  circumstances
where SSB consideration has been  deemed  to  be  totally  unworkable.   The
applicant’s record does not warrant direct promotion, nor  does  it  warrant
SSB consideration.

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that  the  essence  of
the DPPPE advisory opinion is that since the Inspector General did not  find
the applicant’s complaint  of  reprisal  to  have  been  substantiated,  her
record  correction  application  should  be   denied.    This   reflects   a
fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the AFBCMR.  Under 10 USC  1552,
every member has a right to review of his or her application by a “board  of
civilians” acting for the Secretary.  That board, of course, is the  AFBCMR.
 It must render its own  decisions  and  not  simply  rubberstamp  those  of
uniformed personnel, including the --AF IG.

The applicant’s application is quite detailed, is submitted under oath,  and
is supported  by  substantial  evidence.   The  two  advisory  opinions,  in
contrast, are totally superficial.  Neither one makes the  slightest  effect
to assess the  evidence  adduced  by  the  applicant,  nor  to  address  the
specific  arguments  advanced   in   her   supporting   memorandum.    Vague
generalities are no more worthy of acceptance when  they  come  in  advisory
opinions than when  they  are  submitted  by  an  applicant.   The  advisory
opinions are of no assistance to the AFBCMR because  they  fail  to  address
the specifics of the case.  In a perfect universe it would  be  tempting  to
urge the AFBCMR to require the submission of advisory opinions that  do  so.
However, in light of the passage of time and the fact that there can  be  no
assurance that such advisory opinions would  be  any  more  helpful  to  the
board that the ones previously  submitted,  we  believe  the  AFBCMR  should
proceed  on  its  own  to  examine  the  evidence  and  draw  the   required
conclusions.  The Air Force is not entitled to a second bite  at  the  apple
while the applicant continues to suffer the career harm  identified  in  her
submission.

We also note that, in  addition  to  failing  to  come  to  grips  with  the
particulars  of  the  case  presented  in  the  application  and  supporting
materials, the offices that submitted the advisory opinions have  failed  to
submit any witness statements that might overcome the applicant’s evidence.

As one witness whose name has been redacted from the IG’s report  concluded,
“[r]garding leadership performance at the --th Medical Group  vis-à-vis  the
applicant, REDACTED summed it up with four words: “They get an F.”  See  our
brief at 15.  The advisory opinion from DPPPE,  however,  fails  to  address
those prejudicial circumstances, even though they are set  forth  in  detail
in the application.  Instead, it seeks to treat  the  case  as  if  it  were
simply a series of discrete technical  matters.   This  kind  of  trees  vs.
forest approach is  a  far  cry  from  how  the  AFBMCR  has  performed  its
important function over many years.  Specific promotion recommendations  may
no longer be permitted in  OPRs,  but  that  does  not  mean  stratification
comments-or the lack thereof-are immaterial.  As  we  explained  in  detail,
the applicant was subjected to extremely unfair treatment by her command  at
--- AB.  That kind of treatment inevitably colors what  appears  in  an  OPR
(or, as here  does  not  appear).   Anyone  familiar  with  the  performance
evaluation system knows perfectly well that the choice of terms  in  an  OPR
can have a decisive impact on promotion prospects.

DPPPE  notes  that  since  the  applicant  remained  eligible  for  ISS   in
residence, there was no problem in noting this  on  her  OPR.   Once  again,
this observation overlooks the practical realities of the effect of  such  a
comment in an OPR for an officer in her pay grade.  Sometimes an OPR can  be
unfair even if it is literally accurate.

As for having a new PRF generated, the DPPPE advisory opinion comments  that
it is not clear who the applicant believes should prepare the revised  form,
and suggests that in any event this issue is moot because the IG found  that
there had been reprisal.  Neither of these observations is  valid.   Finding
an appropriate general officer to prepare the PRF will be no problem,  quite
obviously.  Nor is  the  matter  “moot”  simply  because  the  IG  found  no
reprisal.  In fact, as our brief demonstrates,  the  investigation  revealed
clear unfairness directed to  the  applicant,  and  the  reasons  given  for
accepting the command’s contention that she would have been  transferred  in
any event simply do not withstand scrutiny.  We will not  repeat  here  what
is in the brief.  The AFBCMR should simply refer to pp. 4-15.

Nothing  in  the  DPPPE  advisory  opinion  addresses  in  any  manner   the
applicant’s evidence that gender played an improper role in  her  treatment.
Please refer to our brief at pp. 12-13 and  supporting  documentation.   Nor
does the advisory opinion in any way address the unfairness  and  inaccuracy
of the PRF, as noted in our brief at p. 15 and n. 7.   A  PRF  for  a  major
(who is about to meet Lt Col board) that  entirely  fails  to  describe  the
officer’s performance as  a  major  is  a  sham.   The  Air  Force  did  not
establish  the  PRF  machinery  with  a  view  to  its   being   so   easily
circumvented.

The other advisory opinion is from DPPPO.  Like  the  first  one,  this  one
also fails to address the specifics of the  applicant’s  underlying  factual
assertions, but simply takes the IG’s conclusions as a given.  As  explained
above, that is no help at all to the AFBCMR.   The  DPPPO  advisory  opinion
also errs in its characterization of her complaint.   It  is  not  simply  a
question of whether she was a victim of reprisal, but also  whether-reprisal
aside-she was treated unfairly, as the record plainly demonstrates.

DPPPO insists that SSB consideration is unwarranted based solely on  DPPPE’s
advisory opinion, including the suggestion that the applicant’s PRF is  moot
because the IG investigation found no reprisal.  As we  have  explained,  it
is for the AFBCMR, and not the --AF IG, to decide whether her objections  to
the PRF-which transcend reprisal-are valid.
DPPPO also maintains that no relief is  warranted  in  respect  of  the  OSB
recitation of the applicant’s duty history.  The date on  the  duty  history
indicates that on November 2,  1998,  she  was  Sembach  Community  Services
Coordinator.  But the OPR for the reporting period  from  July  3,  1998  to
July 12, 1999 suggests that she was  the  Family  Advocacy  Element  Leader.
The title of S--- Community Services Coordinator never  even  existed.   The
three OSBs attached to the advisory opinion drop the --- title and  add  the
correct one that was not given until January 2000.  The  fact  remains  that
at the time of the selection board, the acting title on the  OSB  assignment
history was --- community Services Coordinator, not Family Advocacy  Element
Leader, as the OPR has  it.   The  resulting  discrepancy  could  only  have
puzzled the 1999 Lt Col  board,  prejudicing  the  applicant’s  chances  for
promotion.

If the AFBCMR takes the time to go through the actual evidence  for  itself,
rather than treat the ---AF IG’s conclusions as  a  fait  accompli  (as  the
advisory opinions clearly do), we believe it will  see  that  the  applicant
has indeed suffered career injury.  This is one of those unusual  situations
in which the applicant’s record is so unfair for such long  period  of  time
that the SSB system cannot reasonably be expected  to  correct  the  matter,
and that as  a  result,  direct  promotion  is  called  for.   That  is  our
strongest request.  If, as our  brief  explained,  the  promotion,  then  it
should at least mandate consideration by an SSB based on a  fully  corrected
record.  Any  SSB  that  is  conducted  should  be  furnished  a  memorandum
indicating that because of  previous  career  injury,  it  should  deem  the
applicant to have received a Definitely Promote on the PRF.

Applicant’s counsel complete response 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 that would warrant  partial  relief
in this case.

            a.  After reviewing the evidence provided, we are not  persuaded
that direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel is warranted.   The
applicant's  contentions  regarding  the  statutory  compliance  of  Special
Selection Boards (SSBs) and the legality of the SSB process are duly  noted;
however, we do not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive  to  override
the rationale provided by the Air  Staff.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice in this matter.

            b.  Notwithstanding the above, the  applicant  states  that  his
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing on 2 May 1990  and  14 June  1991
were erroneous because the PME recommendations from  his  additional  raters
and reviewers were inadvertently omitted.  In support of his  contention  he
provided credible evidence from the additional raters and  reviewers,  which
support his  claim  that  the  omissions  were  indeed  errors.   Given  the
unequivocal support  from  the  senior  officers  involved,  and  having  no
plausible reason to doubt their integrity in this matter,  we  believe  that
correction of his OPRs is warranted.  As a consequence  of  the  above,  his
records were not correct at the time he was considered for promotion to  the
grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY93A,  CY94A,  CY96C,  and   CY97C
lieutenant boards.  It is our opinion that the most appropriate and  fitting
relief is to place his corrected record before an SSB for consideration  for
promotion by  those  boards.   Accordingly,  we  recommend  his  records  be
corrected to the extent 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.  His Officer Performance Report rendered  for  the  period  13 July
1989 through 2 May 1990, be amended in Section VII  to  include  the  remark
"Select for SSS" in the last line.

      b.  His Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 3 May  1990
through 14 June 1991, be amended in Section VII to include  the  remark  "--
after Senior Service School" added to the last line.

      c.  It is further recommended that he be considered for  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Boards  for  the  CY93A
Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board, and for any subsequent boards for  which
the Officer Performance Reports closing 2 May 1990 and 14 June 1991  were  a
matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 18 Dec 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 8 Jan 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 31 Jan 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 7 Feb 01.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 23 Mar 01.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Apr 01
     Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 9 Nov 01, w/atchs.




            THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
            Vice Chair


AFBCMR 00-03171




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.  His Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 13 July
1989 through 2 May 1990, be amended in Section VII to include the remark
"Select for SSS" in the last line.

      b.  His Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 3 May 1990
through 14 June 1991, be amended in Section VII to include the remark "--
after Senior Service School" added to the last line.

      c.  It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Boards for the CY93A
Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board, and for any subsequent boards for which
the Officer Performance Reports closing 2 May 1990 and 14 June 1991 were a
matter of record; and, if he is selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel, the results of the particular Special Selection Board
be made available to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate
actions may be taken consistent with his selection for retroactive
promotion.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency