RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01818
            INDEX CODE:  135.00, 102.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

1.  He regain his Undergraduate Pilot Training  (UPT)  slot  at  NAS  Corpus
Christi, and be given 10 warm-up flights in the T-34 and then placed in  the
T-44 track located at the same base.

2.  His  military  record   be   cleansed   of   his   Officer   Performance
Reports/Education/Training Reports from Vance AFB  and  any  others  between
the time he left NAS Whiting Field until his return to UPT.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) investigation was done concerning  sexual
harassment, hostile work environment, and Quid  Pro  Quo  aspects  with  all
allegations  being  substantiated.   These  actions  have  no  place  in   a
professional training environment,  much  less  in  the  United  States  Air
Force.  They go against everything they are taught as  officers  in  Officer
Training School, Squadron Officer School, and every command he has  been  in
until Vance AFB.  His requests are fair and equitable considering  the  fact
that it has been proven that Vance AFB presented a hostile work  environment
creating a situation in which he found impossible to perform his  duties  as
a student.

He waited until he  left  Vance  AFB  before  submitting  these  allegations
because of fear of retailiation and reprisal.  He was told  that  you  never
question the judgment of an instructor pilot.  The Flight Commander  has  so
much influence that he can actually take a student that is ranked  first  in
his class in flying and academics and drop him to last or  near  last  based
simply on his opinion of the individual.  He also  believed  his  allegation
would not be investigated but merely hidden  or  swept  under  the  rug  and
never to be corrected.

He attended Joint Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training at Naval  Air
Station Pensacola.  He earned his  Electronic  Warfare  Officer  rating  and
wings garnering the Honor Graduate  position.   He  was  then  selected  for
Special Operations and the challenging MC-130H Combat Talon  II,  the  elite
Special Operations infiltration platform.  While  at  the  Combat  Talon  II
school he earned his private pilot’s license in far less than  average  time
earning accolades from his flight instructors, as well as the FAA  examiner.
 After completing the Replacement Training Unit, he reported  to  his  first
assignment at Kadena AFB where he was selected for UPT.

While at JSUPT he achieved many accomplishments and garnered many  accolades
from his peers, instructors, and chain of  command.   These  included  being
ranked number one  in  both  academics  and  flying  for  his  class,  being
selected student of the month, Distinguished  Graduate  and  being  selected
for the Commodore’s list.  While at NAS Whiting Field he  heard  from  other
Air Force students that traditionally you give your instructor a dollar  for
your first  ride.   Wanting  to  keep  an  Air  Force  tradition  alive,  he
purchased a silver dollar and wrote both his and his  instructor’s  name  on
it.  This was his perception of the traditional dollar.   Due  to  his  well
above average flying and academic performance at NAS Whiting Field,  he  was
tracked to the demanding T-38 fighter/bomber track of UPT.

As a student at Vance AFB, OK from October 2000 until May 2001, he  was  the
victim of sexual  harassment,  hazing,  and  abuse  of  authority.   He  was
specifically told to make a pornographic dollar  bill  before  he  would  be
allowed to solo.  He was advised that it was tradition to  create  a  dollar
bill with an Air Force theme, consisting of jet pictures and maybe both  the
student and instructor’s names on the front of the dollar.  The back of  the
dollar should be adorned  with  pornographic  pictures;  the  more  hardcore
pornographic the better.  He was then showed some of the  dollars  that  the
instructor had received from students in  the  past.   The  instructor  kept
these dollars on his desk covered by a  sheet  of  glass  to  protect  them.
During the course of the first four to six  weeks  of  T-38  training,  they
were told multiple times by the G Flight Commander  that  the  dollar  bills
would be turned in before their solo flights, thus holding a  Quid  Pro  Quo
over your head involving sexually explicit material.  The severity  and  the
nature  of  the  pornography  that  was  displayed  in  the   kegerator   (a
refrigerator reconfigured for the sole purpose of  distributing  keged  beer
where pornography was posted on  the  door),  and  the  pornographic  dollar
bills, were very explicit and what the MEO considered severe.

He initially took his complaint to the Inspector General at  Vance  AFB  and
was told that he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.  This statement  was  made
before the IG saw any  evidence.   He  quickly  realized  that  the  IG  was
protecting his own and that he would get nowhere.  He made  a  decision  not
to approach his squadron commander since he, at best, never noticed  any  of
the pornography located all over the flight rooms, didn’t notice  the  large
kegerators located in some  of  the  flight  rooms  containing  pornographic
pictures, didn’t know about the dollar tradition or the fact  that  students
were being forced to provide pornographic dollar  bills,  or  at  worst  had
knowledge of these actions and did nothing about them.   He  then  attempted
three separate meetings with the Wing Commander who had no time to  see  him
and was referred to the  Vice  Wing  Commander.   The  Vice  Wing  Commander
informed him that he had already made the  determination  to  eliminate  him
from training.  On the third  meeting  with  the  Vice  Wing  Commander,  he
wished him luck in his quest to be reinstated to pilot  training  and  would
not support the request.  He believed he had  exhausted  every  avenue  that
was available to him at Vance AFB and in the AETC command  channels.   Since
leaving Vance AFB he  has  searched  for  the  proper  way  to  handle  this
situation.  The effects of this type of environment had negative effects  on
him and his family.  His wife witnessed the  pornography,  the  hazing,  and
the abuses of authority.  She watched him change from being a very  outgoing
person, a competent and extremely  capable  aviator  who  loved  flying  and
loved going to work everyday into a person who was a little  more  withdrawn
everyday and dreaded going  to  flight  school.   Upon  his  return  to  the
Special Operations community and  in  a  professional  environment,  he  has
reestablished his outstanding track record.

He is an officer in the United States Air Force  having  taken  an  oath  of
office and sworn to uphold the legal orders, laws, and directives  of  those
appointed over him.  He realizes that his  career  may  be  over  by  coming
forward with this information; however, he  understands  the  Whistleblowers
Protection Act and how it can protect him.  He did not choose to  be  placed
in this situation.  The instructors,  flight  commander  and  the  chain  of
command at Vance AFB chose this situation for him.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  a  personal  statement,  a
copy of the Equal Opportunity and Treatment (EOT)  Complaint  Clarification,
FOIA requests dated 4 and 10 April 2002 respectively, a copy of an MFR  from
the 352 Flight Surgeon, copies of pornographic dollars, copies of  his  OPRs
and Training Reports covering the period 12 June 2001  through  13  February
1997; copies of Memoranda for Record regarding Air Force Policy  on  Hazing;
a copy of a Discrimination and Sexual Harassment flowchart  and  a  copy  of
the Military Commander  and  the  Law  reference  hazing.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates that on 27 November 1995, the applicant  was  appointed  a  second
lieutenant, Reserve  of  the  Air  Force  and  was  voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty effective 15 March 1996.  He is  currently  serving  on
active duty in the grade of captain, with a date of rank  and  an  effective
date of 15 March 2000.  The applicant is currently  serving  at  Mildenhall,
UK.

The applicant’s record contains  two  AF  Forms  707B,  Officer  Performance
Reports (OPRs) beginning with the rating period 6 February 1998  and  ending
5 February 2000 with overall  ratings  of  “Meets  Standards.”   Before  and
during these rating periods, the  applicant  received  five  AF  Forms  475,
Education/Training Records, documenting his completion of  the  Primary  and
Intermedicate  SN/NFO  Training;  Electronic   Warfare   Officer   Training;
Electronic Warfare  Officer  Mission  Qualification;  Joint  Primary  Flight
Training; and Squadron Officer School (Resident Course).   He  received  one
AF Form 475 dated 14 June 2001 to document his elimination from  Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) due to flying deficiencies.

A Commander Directed Report of Investigation (CDI)  was  completed  pursuant
to allegations raised by the applicant.  The specific allegations raised  by
the applicant were:  that the Flight Commander abused his authority  by  (a)
forcing students to make monetary contributions  to  an  alcohol  fund;  (b)
making students drink to the point of unconsciousness on an  outing  of  the
class; and (c) making students  participate  in  the  activities  associated
with  allegations  (a)  and  (b)  a  prerequisite   of   successful   course
completion.  An investigation was  conducted  by  an  investigating  officer
appointed by the 71 Flying Training Wing during the period 26 March 2002  to
10  May  2002.   The  investigating  officer  concluded  that  one  of   the
applicant’s allegations  was  substantiated.   The  investigating  officer’s
conclusions were subsequently reviewed by legal authorities and approved  by
the 71 FTW commander.

An  Equal  Opportunity  and  Treatment  (EOT)  Complaint  Clarification  was
conducted pursuant to a formal  sexual  harassment  complaint  made  by  the
applicant against the Flight Commander.  The specific allegations raised  by
the applicant were:  (1) From October 2000 - May 2001, he  was  required  to
accomplish his duties as a  UPT  student  in  a  classroom/flightroom  where
offensive pornography was displayed and extremely difficult  to  avoid;  and
(2) He was required (or highly recommended) to make  a  pornographic  dollar
bill before he would  be  allowed  to  solo.   The  complaint  clarification
concluded that both allegations were substantiated  and  were  reviewed  and
found legally sufficient by the Chief, Civil Law, 100 ARW/MEO.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal are contained in  the
official documents provided in the applicant’s submission  (Exhibit  A)  and
in the letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force
(Exhibit C, D, H & I).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF reviewed the application  and  based  on  their  examination  no
training errors were noted.  AETC/DOF provided  an  in-depth  assessment  of
applicant’s training at Vance AFB and states that during  the  CDI  process,
states that the applicant described the impact of  the  Duty  Not  Including
Flying (DNIF) and weather delays on  his  training.   He  stated  that  with
additional training he would be successful in  training  and  was  satisfied
with his instruction.  AETC/DOF states  that  every  student  who  has  been
eliminated desires a second chance to reenter  USAF  pilot  training.   With
repeated concentrated training, individuals may be able to  succeed  in  the
undergraduate training  environment.   However,  students  must  demonstrate
potential to complete follow-on  training  in  more  demanding  and  complex
aircraft.  In DOTF’s opinion, the decision to eliminate the applicant  based
on demonstrated performance and lack of potential was  justified.   However,
if  the  decision  is  to  grant  reinstatement,  AETC/DOF  recommends   the
applicant reenter the advanced phase of pilot training  based  on  needs  of
the Air Force.

The HQ AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application  be  denied.   DPPPE  states  that  in
accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Systems,  “If
the student has failed to complete the course of training, use  one  of  the
following phrases and indicate whether the elimination was  due  to  factors
over which the student did  or  did  not  have  control.”   The  reason  for
elimination was cited as  flying  deficiency.   DPPPE  states  the  training
report was completed correctly.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s rebuttal illustrates a scenario  where  an  environment  has
been manipulated to create a situation,  where  all  rules  and  regulations
seemed to have been followed; however, the  environment  has  influenced  an
individual’s performance.  He states that  aside  from  being  a  victim  of
sexual harassment and of abuse  of  authority,  he  was  also  a  victim  of
extortion.  The command management  policies  governing  all  DoD  personnel
were not followed.  Sexual harassment and a hostile  work  environment  were
proven to have existed in his flightroom.  Hazing, extortion  and  abuse  of
authority also existed.  The environment was proven  to  have  been  abusive
and hostile by an authorized DoD investigative agency.

Applicant states that many of the CDI aspects of his  case  are  drawn  from
perception; however, the CDI missed the purpose of the investigation,  which
is apparent from the three findings they rendered.  The instructors and  the
flight commander, as well  as  some  students  perceived  that  nothing  was
amiss.   It  could  be  that   the   students   were   second   lieutenants,
unknowledgeable  in  the  specifics  of  the   regulations   regarding   the
allegations.  He knows that the  environment  he  trained  in  had  negative
effects on him as well as his family.   It  definitely  affected  his  daily
flying performance.  He wishes to finish the path he set  out  on  and  gain
his pilot wings.  He deserves the opportunity to do that in  an  environment
that is 100 percent in line with the spirit and word  of  all  DoD  and  Air
Force policies and regulations.  Was he  eliminated  because  he  would  not
participate in the session in  question?   No,  he  was  eliminated  due  to
flying deficiencies in the T-38.  He does not argue this; however,  he  does
argue whether the environment that he was at odds with had any impact  of  a
negative nature on his performance.  He says it did.

Applicant states that there is just  one  conclusion  that  can  be  reached
given the overwhelming amount  of  verifiable  information  presented.   The
environment  presented  at  Vance  AFB,  was  in  direct  violation  of  the
Department of Defense, the Uniform Code  of  Military  Justice,  the  United
States Air Force, Air  Education  and  Training  Command,  the  71st  Flying
Training Wing, and the 25th Flying Training Squadron  regulations  policies,
and guidelines concerning sexual harassment, hazing,  extortion,  and  abuse
of authority.  As  such  the  environment  was  hostile  and  abusive.   The
environment was not  conducive  to  learning  and  therefore  he  should  be
reinstated into the Undergraduate Pilot Training pipeline and his  personnel
records be cleared as requested.

On 18 December 2002, applicant  forwarded  a  copy  of  an  Air  Force  News
Article titled “Airman’s Death Prompts Changes in Training.”   (See  Exhibit
G).

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments 1-16,  is  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of injustice.   We  have  carefully  reviewed  all  the  available
documentation pertaining to this case and conclude that  the  applicant  has
been the victim of sexual harassment in the form  of  quid  pro  quo  and  a
hostile work environment as concluded  by  the  Military  Equal  Opportunity
(MEO) complaint review.  We noted that the MEO  findings  substantiated  the
applicant’s complaint and indicated that the primary cause of  the  tensions
he experienced with the staff of  the  Fighter  Training  Squadron,  and  in
particular with his Flight Commander, was  due  to  sexual  harassment.   In
view of the foregoing,  and  in  recognition  of  the  applicant’s  previous
superior performance, we are of the opinion that the  environment  in  which
the SUPT training was conducted contributed negatively  to  the  applicant’s
ability as an Air Force  pilot  and  his  eventual  elimination  from  SUPT.
Based on this finding, we believe the circumstances  of  this  case  warrant
his being given an opportunity to regain his  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training
slot; however, not at the Navy facility as the applicant has  requested  but
at his last training location.  We have noted the applicant’s  argument  for
requesting training with the Navy;  however,  we  believe  that  responsible
officials have taken  appropriate  corrective  measures  to  ensure  that  a
professional training environment is and will be maintained.   Additionally,
sufficient time has elapsed since this incident transpired and a  new  realm
of authority is in place.  Therefore, we believe that  it  is  in  the  best
interest of both the Air Force and the applicant, that  he  resume  his  Air
Force flying  career  at  the  training  facility  where  his  disenrollment
occurred.  In view of  the  MEO  substantiated  findings  and  the  apparent
hostile  work  environment  he  endured,  we  believe  the  Training  Report
rendered for the period 25 October 2000  through  12  June  2001  should  be
removed from his record.  Accordingly, we  recommend  that  his  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

4.  We note the applicant’s request that  his  record  be  cleansed  of  his
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs)  and  Education  Training  Reports  (TRs)
from Vance AFB and any others between the time he  left  NAS  Whiting  Field
until his return to  UPT.   No  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to
demonstrate the existence of error  or  injustice  that  would  lead  us  to
believe that his OPRs and TRs, with the exception of the TR closing 12  June
2001, received while  stationed  at  Vance  AFB  are  erroneous  or  unjust.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend removal of these particular OPRs  and  TRs.


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 DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.  The Education/Training Report, AF Form  475,  for  the  period  25
October 2000 through 12 June 2001, and all documents and references  to  his
elimination of Undergraduate Pilot Training for  flying  deficiencies,  25th
Flying Training Squadron, Vance AFB, OK, be declared void and  removed  from
his records.

       b.  Provided  he  is  otherwise  eligible,  he   be   reinstated   in
Undergraduate Pilot Training  (UPT)  at  Vance  AFB,  OK,  at  the  earliest
practicable date for the purpose of  T-38  advanced  (Bomber-Fighter)  track
training.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
           Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
           Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

All members voted to correct  the  record  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket  Number
02-01818.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 24 Sep 02, w/atchs
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Oct 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  AFNEWS Article, released 24 Nov 99.
   Exhibit H.  Commander Directed Investigation, 71 FTW/CC, dated
               25 Jul 02, w/atchs (withdrawn).
   Exhibit I.  Equal Opportunity Treatment Complaint, 100 ARW/ME,
               dated 12 Feb 02, w/atchs (withdrawn).




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR 02-01818




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 xxxxxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that:

                a.  The Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, for the
period 25 October 2000 through 12 June 2001, and all documents and
references to his elimination of Undergraduate Pilot Training for flying
deficiencies, 25th Flying Training Squadron, Vance AFB, OK, be, and hereby
are, declared void and removed from his records.

       b.  Provided  he  is  otherwise  eligible,  he   be   reinstated   in
Undergraduate Pilot Training  (UPT)  at  Vance  AFB,  OK,  at  the  earliest
practicable date for the purpose of  T-38  advanced  (Bomber-Fighter)  track
training.







   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency