RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01943
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on her for the period 23
Sep 91 through 22 Sep 92 be voided and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR, the first rendered on her on active duty, is not  a
fair or true assessment  of  her  capabilities  because  she  was  not
adequately prepared to perform her duties as a deputy  missile  combat
crew commander.  She  believes  that  although  she  was  inadequately
prepared, she graduated  from  Undergraduate  Missile  Training  (UMT)
primarily because there was great pressure not to fail her because she
was female.  Only through an additional 120 hours  of  supervised  and
assigned study/training was she able to graduate.

When she reported to her first  duty  station,  she  did  not  have  a
security clearance and was unable to begin localized training for  the
first two months.  As a result, the knowledge she had obtained at  UMT
deteriorated.  When she started her localized  upgrade  training,  she
was paired with a brand new missile  combat  crew  commander  who  had
trouble with his own upgrade training  during  the  previous  training
cycle.  During  their  upgrade  training  sequence,  they  encountered
problems, which led to less than favorable results  on  their  Missile
Procedure Trainer (MRT) rides.   She  was  also  given  MWT  rides  by
numerous  missile  combat  crew  commanders,  each  with   their   own
techniques, which caused her  to  become  more  confused  and  led  to
unsuccessful training rides.

She also experienced difficulty  in  obtaining  her  training  records
during her upgrade training sequence as well as during the preparation
of her rebuttal to the referral OPR, which was key to her  being  able
to document her training problems.  Squadron leadership told her  that
group/wing leadership was reviewing her training record and  that  she
could not have access to it.

She believes the contested OPR was rendered on her with  the  goal  of
disqualifying her from  the  missile  operations  career  field.   She
should have been disqualified prior to finishing UMT.   Had  she  been
allowed to retrain while at UMT,  she  would  never  have  received  a
referral OPR.

In support of her appeal, she provides a copy of the referral OPR  and
associated correspondence.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain.  While serving in her first duty assignment as a Deputy  Crew
Commander Minuteman ICBM, she was found deficient in job knowledge and
received a referral  OPR.   She  was  disqualified  from  the  missile
operations career field.  Applicant is now assigned to  the  Personnel
career field.  All  OPRs  received  since  the  referral  report  have
overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant  was  considered,
but not selected for promotion to major  in-the-primary  zone  by  the
CY01A  Central  Major  Selection  Board.   The  CY02A  Central   Major
Selection Board selected her for promotion above-the-promotion zone.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  void  the
OPR.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to support  her
assertion that she was forced through the UMT program.  She  addressed
the training issue and her missing training records in her rebuttal to
the referral report.  As such, the  rating  chain  was  aware  of  her
concerns at the  time  and  concurred  with  the  referral  report  as
written.  Further, in a 20 Oct 92  memorandum  by  the  commander,  he
addresses the training record issue.  He states that  the  applicant’s
records were found on or about 13 Oct 92 and she was welcome to review
and copy them.  However, the applicant did neither, nor did she update
her 8 Oct rebuttal letter, which was not turned in until  16  Oct  92.
The applicant also acknowledges in her 8 Oct 92 rebuttal that she  did
receive extensive training, but goes on to address other issues, which
she  believes  impacted  her  abilities.   By  the   applicant’s   own
admission, she was provided adequate training and the OPR was  written
in accordance with governing directives.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  that  the  applicant  not  be  considered  for
promotion to major by special selection board for  the  CY01A  Central
Major  Selection  Board.    They   based   their   recommendation   on
AFPC/DPPPE’s recommendation that the applicant’s OPR  not  be  removed
from her records.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
18 Oct 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ USAF/XOSO provided  an  evaluation
to address  applicant’s  contentions  regarding  the  conduct  of  her
training and that she only graduated from UMT because she was  female.
They recommend denial of the applicant’s request to void her  referral
OPR.

The applicant met minimum training requirements for UMT.  The  scoring
standards at the time of her graduation were  85%  for  Weapon  System
(WS) training and 90% for Emergency War  Order  (EWO)  training.   Her
averages were 86% in WS and 92% in EWO.  Many students  have  received
additional hours of training.  Though 120 hours is high, over a 79-day
course, this is not unreasonable.

All UMT students received an End-of-Course evaluation  provided  by  a
separate  organization,  the  3901st  Strategic   Missile   Evaluation
Squadron.  All UMT graduates had to  pass  this  evaluation  prior  to
reporting to their respective units.  If she had failed  WS,  EWO,  or
her final evaluation, a special faculty board would have been convened
to determine  whether  she  would  be  retested,  reevaluated,  and/or
continued in the program.  The applicant’s package  does  not  support
the  requirement  to  convene  this  board.   The  applicant  met  all
requirements to graduate UMT.

Lack of security clearances do  detract  from  new  students  becoming
mission ready.  The Operation Support Squadron (OSS) training  section
ensures each crewmember is provided Unit Qualification Training (UQT).
 Students are given refresher WS and EWO training during UQT to ensure
they are ready for missile duty.   Many  individuals  report  to  duty
without security clearances.  Some clearances take up to 6  months  to
process.   By  the  applicant’s  own  admission,  she   was   provided
“extensive training” but was unable to meet mission ready standards.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Additional Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 6 Dec 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date,
a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices 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.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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  02-01943
in Executive Session on 4 February 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 13 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOSO, dated 4 Dec 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Dec 02.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair