RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02814
            INDEX CODE:  111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR)  rendered  for  the  period  16 Jan  00
through 15 Jan 01 be corrected to reflect  that  she  met  standards  or  be
removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The referral OPR is  based  on  speculation  of  an  alleged  unprofessional
relationship with an enlisted member.  In 1998 she was  assigned  as  Flight
Commander of a flight  of  nine  recruiters.   She  relied  heavily  on  the
experience of TSgt Willis, who had been a recruiter for  7  years.   Due  to
the nature of the  job,  she  and  TSgt  Willis  frequently  had  to  travel
together to conduct interviews, visit college  campuses,  attend  recruiting
fairs, and visit recruiters in the  field.   Over  a  15-month  period  they
spent many hours together in the office, driving  together,  and  flying  to
various locations.  During this time they were  both  separated  from  their
spouses and going through divorces.  TSgt Willis' wife  was  convinced  that
the reason he wanted a divorce was because he  was  having  an  affair  with
her.  She was unable to accept the truth that he simply  did  not  love  her
anymore.  His spouse  constantly  made  calls  to  the  squadron  and  group
commanders  as  well  as  the  Security  Police  and   Office   of   Special
Investigations (OSI) trying to cause trouble and  making  allegations.   She
was infuriated when they refused to look into the matter because  there  was
insufficient evidence.  The applicant was  counseled  by  her  commander  on
avoiding the appearance of  impropriety.   She  assured  him  that  she  was
conducting herself appropriately but he never seemed to accept  her  denials
of impropriety.

Despite having completed nearly 18 years of service, TSgt Willis decided  to
separate.  He knew it would cost him his military pension,  but  he  decided
that the amount that he was going to get after his spouse took her share  of
his retirement pay did not justify his staying any longer.  While it may  be
true that one small factor in his decision  to  separate  was  to  pursue  a
relationship with her, that did not in any way impugn her  integrity  as  an
officer.  She upheld her responsibilities as an officer by making  it  clear
to him that she could not pursue a relationship with  him  while  they  were
both on active  duty.   If  he  chose  to  separate  in  part  to  pursue  a
relationship with her, there is  absolutely  nothing  morally,  legally,  or
ethically wrong  with  that.   He  separated  in  August  1999  and  shortly
thereafter they began a serious relationship and subsequently  married  each
other.

The comments in the OPR that she failed to  meet  standards  are  completely
unfair, unjustified, and unduly prejudicial to her  career.   Her  commander
wrote her referral OPR in January 2001 based on comments and  actions  which
supposedly occurred in January 2000.  If she indeed made  such  comments  or
exhibited the behaviors that led him to  believe  that  she  was  having  an
inappropriate relationship then it should have reflected in  her  OPR  dated
January 2000.  AFI 36-2406 states "Do not include comments regarding  events
which occurred in a previous  reporting  period,  unless  the  events...were
known and considered by the previous evaluators."  If  the  events  came  to
her commander's attention in January 2000 as he states, then it had to  have
been known and considered in her last OPR and it  was  clearly  improper  to
comment in the January 2001 OPR.  At the  time  the  January  2000  OPR  was
written, her raters apparently had no  concerns  about  her  officership  or
professionalism.

The comment in section VI of the OPR that she failed to  meet  standards  is
inaccurate and  untruthful.   There  is  no  evidence  to  substantiate  her
commander's claim of  dishonest  behavior/lack  of  integrity  and  her  job
performance was otherwise stellar.  She was repeatedly  counseled  regarding
an alleged relationship.  The relationship with TSgt Willis was  scrutinized
intensively and there was simply no  evidence  of  wrongdoing,  merely  idle
speculation.  She assured her chain of command that she was  not  and  would
not have a relationship with a subordinate while on active duty.   She  well
understood that such a relationship was prohibited and would  have  affected
the  overall  productivity,  morale  and  trust  of  her   flight   members.
Reference letters from former flight members  provide  clear  evidence  that
they had and continue to have the utmost respect for her.  The  only  person
who took the rumors seriously was her commander.

The sole evidence of her alleged lack  of  integrity  and  failure  to  meet
standards is the fact that  she  and  TSgt  Willis  began  dating  and  were
married  fairly  soon  after  his  separation.   From  this,  her  commander
concluded that all the rumors must have been true and  that  she  must  have
been lying to him when  she  previously  denied  any  wrongdoing.   He  even
suggested to her that the only reason her husband separated was  because  he
was already engaged in an unprofessional relationship with her.  He  ignored
the fact that she and her husband knew each other very well by the  time  he
separated and had become friends.

If this OPR remains in her record it will have a  very  negative  impact  on
her chances for promotion to major in 2003.  Every OPR  thus  far  has  been
exemplary, including the most recent OPR prepared in  March  2002.   If  not
promoted she will be forced to separate after 15 years of dedicated  service
to the country.  It is her strong desire to stay in the  Air  Force  for  at
least 20 years and retire before moving on to the civilian workforce.

In support of her request, applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  her
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  decision  memorandum,  her  referral
OPR with attachments, a  chronological  summary  of  events,  and  reference
statements.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a Nurse Corps  officer,  is  currently  serving  on  extended
active duty in the grade of captain.  The  following  is  a  resume  of  her
recent OPR profile:

PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL RATING

      15 Jan 02        Meets Standards (MS)
      15 Jan 01* Does Not Meet Standards in Section V item  3  (Professional
                            Qualities)
      15 Jan 00        MS
      15 Jan 99        MS
      15 Jan 98        MS

*- Contested Report

Applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB for removal of the OPR closing  15
Jan 01 and her appeal was denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPPE
states that the ERAB denied her appeal  because  she  did  not  provide  any
documentation to prove her  claim;  stating,  the  most  effective  evidence
consists of statements from evaluators who signed the report or  from  other
individuals in the rating chain when the report was signed.    Although  the
memorandums  she  provided  from  members  outside  her  rating  chain   are
admirable, these memorandums of support do not address her  allegation  that
the referral OPR is based on speculation of an unprofessional  relationship.
  Regarding  her  contention  that  the  speculation  of  an  unprofessional
relationship should have been addressed in her previous OPR closing  15  Jan
00, DPPPE states that AFI 36-2406 states "do not include comments  regarding
events which occurred in a previous reporting period unless the  events  add
significantly to the evaluation report, were not  known  and  considered  by
the previous evaluators, and were not previously reflected in an  evaluation
report."  The rater clearly states that in January 2000, he  was  forced  to
conclude that her precious adamant denials of an inappropriate  relationship
were untruthful.   This  rating  period  began  16  Jan  00.   There  is  no
substantiated documentation to support her allegation that her  rater  based
his evaluation on pure speculation.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11  Oct
02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  contentions  are  duly
noted: however, after thoroughly reviewing the documentation  that  she  has
provided in support of her appeal, the Board majority finds no  evidence  of
an error in this case and is not persuaded that she has been the  victim  of
an injustice.  In the rating process, evaluators are required  to  assess  a
ratee's performance, honestly and to the best of their  ability.   In  cases
of this nature, the Board majority does not feel  inclined  to  disturb  the
judgments of commanding  officers  absent  a  strong  showing  of  abuse  of
discretionary authority.  Other than her own assertions,  evidence  has  not
been presented which would lead the  Board  majority  to  believe  that  her
rating chain abused their authority.  Therefore, the Board  majority  agrees
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopts their rationale as the basis for their  conclusion
that she has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   Absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds  no  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  02-02240  in
Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Ms. Martha Evans, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the requests.   Ms. Evans  voted
to correct the record and did not desire to submit a minority  report.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated, 29 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 4 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Oct 02.




                                             PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                             Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
               FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended
the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards
Agency