RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02009

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period    26  July
2000 through 4 December 2000 be removed from  his  records  and  he  receive
supplemental promotion consideration to chief master sergeant (E-9) for  the
01E9 promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 27 February 2001, he received  a  reprisal  EPR  for  filing  a  HQ  AETC
Inspector General (IG) complaint against his  then  squadron  commander,  Lt
Col L___.  Specifically, he was reprised against on the EPR by  CMSgt  J___,
Maj S___, Lt Col L___, and Col C___.

He sought redress  to  the  reprisal  EPR  by  filing  a  HQ  Air  Force  IG
complaint.  HQ Air Force IG refused to conduct  its  own  investigation  and
refused to interview key personnel in his direct reporting chain  who  would
corroborate the reprisal, namely, Col  J___,  58th  Logistics  Group  Deputy
Commander, and CMSgt R___, 58th Logistics Group Superintendent.

Beyond being a gross injustice to his  military  record  and  an  inaccurate
representation of his military service, this reprisal EPR continues to  have
a detrimental impact on his career progression and opportunities.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement,  a  letter
from Senator Feinstein, copies of  EPRs,  performance  Feedback  worksheets,
character reference statements, award nomination submissions, E-9  promotion
score sheet,  HQ  AETC  IG  complaint  w/atchs,  a  Freedom  of  Information
request, a redacted copy of the  Commander  Directed  Investigation,  and  a
Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) complaint.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently on terminal leave in the  Regular  Air  Force  in
the grade of senior master sergeant.

On 20 November 2000, the 58th Maintenance  Squadron  Commander  removed  the
applicant from his position as Avionics Flight Chief.

On 19 January 2001, a Commander Directed Report of Investigation  (CDI)  was
conducted on the applicant and his command chain into allegations of  gender
discrimination from a female squadron  member.   Based  on  the  documentary
evidence, the investigating  officer  found  all  allegations  made  by  the
female member were  unsubstantiated.   However,  it  was  the  investigating
officer’s opinion that the applicant and the female member  are  equally  to
blame for the events that brought about the  investigation.   As  Air  Force
senior NCOs they should have  possessed  the  maturity  and  the  leadership
skills  to  solve  their  personality  conflict  and   not   embroil   their
subordinates,  peers,  and  superiors.  Their  unprofessional  actions  were
inexcusable (see CDI at Exhibit C).

On 16-27 February 2001, a Commander Directed Report of  Investigation  (CDI)
was conducted into the applicant’s allegations of wrongful removal from  his
position.  The CDI concluded that the commander made the right  decision  to
remove the applicant from  his  position.   The  managerial  and  leadership
skills that were successful for him  in  the  Accessories  Flight  were  not
appropriate for the management of the Avionics  Flight.  The  applicant  did
not  evaluate  the  group  dynamics  of  this  new  flight  and  modify  his
managerial methods to deal with a different situation and  a  different  set
of personnel—these were professional, not  the  Animal  House  Flight.   The
rationale used by Lt Col L__ documented in his memo for record was  accurate
and justified removing the applicant. (see CDI at Exhibit D).

In response to applicant’s  24  April  2001  complaint  to  the  DOD  IG,  a
Military Whistleblower Reprisal Preliminary  Analysis  was  conducted  on  4
October 2001. The HQ AETC/IG, DOD IG, and  SAF/IGQ  all  concurred  that  no
investigation was warranted under Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1034 (see  HQ
AETC/IGQ Report at Exhibit E).

EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

           25 Sep 97                     5
           25 Sep 98                     5
           25 Jul 99                     5
           25 Jul 00                     5
      *    04 Dec 00                     5
           04 Dec 01                     5
           05 Dec 02                     5
     *  Contested report.
The first cycle the contested EPR was used  in  the  promotion  process  was
cycle 01E9 to Chief Master Sergeant (promotions  effective  January-December
2002).  His board score  was  285.00  and  his  total  promotion  score  was
550.58. The score required for selection in his AFSC was 639.75.  His  board
score for cycle 02E9 was 322.50, total promotion score was 600.08,  and  the
score required for selection was 653.66.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this application and recommends denial.   The  applicant
contends that the 4 December 2000 EPR is  unjust  because  the  markdown  in
section III, block 3 was based on retribution.  While  the  applicant  cites
several “reasons” why he  believes  his  rater  and  commander  were  biased
toward him due to his filing of an IG complaint, he  has  not  provided  any
substantiated evidence.  The three supporting statements provided are  vague
and draw their own conclusion  of  reprisal.   Specifically,  the  statement
from Col B__ states “in his opinion” and the  memo  from  Capt  V__  clearly
states “seemingly” and “if this occurred,” which draws the  conclusion  that
this is also only their opinion.  The last memo from  CMSgt  R__  states  he
was in the applicant’s rating chain, but nowhere in the  applicant’s  record
does it show Chief R__ as a rater.  Further, his  memo  was  written  nearly
three years after the fact and no explanation was  provided  as  to  why  he
didn’t act as a member of the rating chain to stop the “injustice”  at  that
time.  Also,  the  IG  complaint  was  not  substantiated  and  it  is  very
improbable that his entire rating chain corroborated in a scheme to end  his
career.  It is important to note that the  applicant  had  the  same  rating
chain for his previous evaluation (which was a “firewall”  5  (all  markings
were to the far right); although, IAW AFI 36-2406,  para  3.  7.  3,  it  is
inappropriate for  evaluators  to  consider  previous  reports  or  ratings.
Paragraph 3.2.1.3. states, “The rater assesses and documents what the  ratee
did,  how  well  he  did  it,  and  the  ratee’s  potential  based  on  that
performance.”   It  is  clear  that  this  rating  chain  believed  in   the
applicant’s previous report that he was  a  “firewall”  performer;  however,
their opinion changed based on his performance during the rating  period  26
July 2000 through        4 December 2000.

Additionally, the applicant states that no negative  feedback  was  provided
by either the rater or the commander  indicating  his  performance  had  any
shortcomings, which warranted a markdown. The fact that he was not  informed
formally that his performance was lacking does not mean he wasn’t  counseled
verbally  on  a  daily  basis  about  his  performance.   In  fact,  the  IG
investigation findings specifically  state  he  was  counseled  on  numerous
occasions concerning his leadership skills.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when
it becomes a matter of record.  There are no errors or injustices  cited  in
the 4 December 2000 EPR.  He has not provided  any  supporting  evidence  to
indicate the EPR was unjust.  The IG investigation,  as  well  as  the  CDI,
clearly state the applicant’s claims are  unsubstantiated,  and  the  member
himself states that he was removed from his job  as  Avionics  Flight  Chief
due to the fact that his avenues to address his allegations  through  formal
investigations were conducted, and none  found  evidence  in  his  favor  to
support his allegations.

AFPC/DPPPE complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and states the first time  the  report
was considered in the promotion process was for cycle 01E9 to  Chief  Master
Sergeant (promotions effective Jan-Dec 02).  Should  the  AFBCMR  grant  his
request, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, he will be  entitled
to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E9.

AFPC/DPPPWB complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated again, he is  asking
the AFBCMR to remove the EPR, period of  report:  26  July  2000  through  4
December 2000, from his records based on the grounds that it was unjust  and
a reprisal action.  Once the EPR is removed from his records,  he  asks  the
AFBCMR to recommend the convening  of  a  Supplemental  Promotion  Board  to
reconsider his promotion to E-9 during the cycle 01E9 (2001).  The  reprisal
EPR has virtually eliminated any  possibility  of  him  being  promoted  and
selected  for  certain   duty   assignments.    He   has   presented   ample
substantiated  evidence,  documentation,  and  witness  statements   clearly
attesting to the wrongdoings and reprisal actions he suffered  at  the  hand
of his commanders.  He truly hopes and prays for  your  fair  and  objective
consideration and the just resolution of his case.  He requests  again,  the
opportunity to appear before the AFBCMR to personally present his  case,  if
the Board so desires.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

In a letter of 12 January 2004, Major  P___,  stated  from  May  1999  until
April 2001, he was the Logistics Support Commander at Kirtland AFB, NM.   He
worked on a regular basis with the applicant monitoring the repair cycle  of
aircraft reparables.  They also were the wing  representatives  for  bedding
down the CV-22 aircraft  at  Kirtland  AFB  and  traveled  TDY  together  in
support of that task.

Regarding the allegations against Lt Col L__.  He had a very  close  working
relationship with Lt Col L__, as they were the only squadron  commanders  in
the Logistics Group.  They worked  together  on  a  daily  basis,  attending
multiple meetings both official and private.   He  would  add  that  at  one
point in time he was Lt Col L__’s best  friend  at  Kirtland  AFB.   On  one
occasion, Lt Col L__ was making remarks aloud  in  his  office  calling  the
applicant “a disloyal traitor.”  He stated that he had observed nothing  but
professional work from the applicant and would be more than  happy  to  have
him in his squadron.  Lt Col L__ then asks him, “Good.  You  want  him,  you
can have the son of a bitch as you get every fired NCO  in  the  wing.”   It
was a true statement that he had  previously  been  forced  by  the  command
structure to take at least three senior NCO’s that had been fired by Lt  Col
L__, into LSS.

His testimony is especially relevant as his officer performance  report  for
17 March 2000 to 16 March 2001 was  removed  by  the  Air  Force  Board  For
Correction of Military Records (BC-2003-00246 BCMR Case 01, see  Exhibit  I)
in July of 2003 for the following reasons:

      - Ratings and Comments Inconsistent with Prior Evaluations
      - Personality Conflict
      - Undue Emphasis on Isolated Incidents
      - Lack of Counseling and Feedback

His allegations were against Col P__, Col C__ and CMSgt S__.  The very  same
chain of command that the applicant worked for, with  the  exception  of  Lt
Col L__.  The applicant and he had similar treatment and lack of success  in
dealing with the 58th  SOW  command  structure.   The  similarities  in  the
applicant’s case and his should not be surprising, as that  was  the  normal
mode of operation for the 58th SOW.   He  is  living  proof,  the  58th  SOW
leadership has a track history of  failing  to  provide  feedback,  in  some
cases refusal to discuss items was experienced  by  him  as  well.   In  his
case, the Air Force IG also refused to investigate.  He experienced  a  58th
SOW command structure that was biased,  illogical  and  impossible  to  deal
with, the same as the applicant.  If you weren’t in CMSgt S__’s clique,  you
were doomed to failure by the wing commander.

To summarize, he found  the  applicant’s  performance  outstanding  and  his
integrity was without question.  He performed his  duties  as  directed,  as
required, and was simply not supported by the very  chain  of  command  that
directed his efforts.  He  believes  he  as  never  provided  with  negative
feedback by his chain of command as he was aware of his situation as it  was
happening with  added  advantage  of  hearing  his  side  and  his  squadron
commander’s  side  of  the  story   simultaneously   in   confidence.    The
applicant’s treatment was completely unacceptable. The injustice  can  never
be fully corrected, however, the best that can be  done  at  this  point  in
time is to remove his reprisal EPR as required and give him  a  fair  chance
to compete for Chief Master Sergeant, a rank he so truly  deserves.   He  is
amazed that after his treatment, he  is  still  in  the  United  States  Air
Force, and he  believes  that  fact  alone  is  testimony  to  the  type  of
dedication the applicant possesses.

In a letter of 28 April 2004, Capt v___, stated the leadership of  the  58th
SOW removed the applicant from his supervisory position  and  suddenly  told
him that he was not  properly  carrying  out  his  responsibilities.   This,
despite the absolutely flawless career record and highest of  accolades  and
awards his units had previously bestowed upon him.  Never in his career  had
he seen an abrupt change in the rating of a performance report than the  one
the applicant received for the  latter  part  of  2000,  compared  to  every
previous report.  Nevertheless, the applicant wisely knew  that  if  he  had
professionally carried out his duties as lawfully directed by  his  command,
he should have nothing to answer for.  Therefore, he filed an  IG  complaint
to ensure his record would  not  suffer,  despite  the  impropriety  of  his
unit’s leadership.

As a result of the IG  investigation,  the  applicant’s  performance  report
(for a mere four and a half month period) suddenly went from  superstar,  to
mediocre.  The timing itself should be strong evidence of  the  impropriety,
particularly in light of the supporting statements by others  who  witnessed
his performance during that period.

Yet, one other, and in his mind very significant, aspect of  this  case  has
crystallized his belief  that  the  leadership  in  the  58th  SOW  did  act
wrongfully.  In his years as the Area Defense Counsel at  Kirtland  AFB,  he
was privy to a great  deal  of  confidential  information  relating  to  the
actions of certain individuals, including leadership personnel.   There  was
a constant  state  of  information  regarding  the  actions  of  commanders,
specifically with the 58th SOW, that disturbed him from legal, ethical,  and
military  perspective.   Without  a  doubt,  and   without   divulging   any
confidences received from his clients, he can unequivocally state  that  the
applicant’s allegations are neither unique nor isolated. His experience  was
one of many where certain leaders in the 58th  SOW  were  not  only  lacking
core values, but were patently  abusive.   Within  the  organization,  there
were clearly preferential treatment, sliding  scales  of  expectations,  and
disparate use of management tools depending on what “clique”  you  were  in.
In his mind, there is no doubt the applicant was reprised  against  for  his
filing  of  an  IG  complaint,  with  the  objective  of  furthering  select
individuals’ careers.

The applicant has fought this battle for three  years,  with  little  or  no
positive results.  His tenacity and conviction for  doing  the  right  thing
have carried him this far.  Certainly a victory  on  principal  can  be  the
only justification for his unending quest,  because  a  promotion,  even  to
chief master sergeant, could never be worth the  sacrifices  and  bitterness
he has endured.  In  sum  he  hopes  the  BCMR  will  see  the  overwhelming
circumstantial proof that the applicant  has  presented  and  give  him  the
deserved benefit of any doubt in this matter.  He is by far the best  Senior
NCO he has had the pleasure of representing,  and  the  Air  Force  deserves
more chief master sergeants like him.  His only regret is that he could  not
do more to rectify this injustice served against the applicant.

In a letter of 29 April 2004, Col B__  stated  as  the  former  58th  Deputy
Logistics Group Commander,  he  was  in  the  applicant’s  direct  chain  of
command during the report period of his  subject  reprisal  EPR.   Over  the
last three plus years, he has strongly supported the applicant’s efforts  to
have the injustice done to him corrected.  He deeply regrets he will not  be
able to attend his hearing but nevertheless, he  wishes  to  make  a  formal
written statement in lieu of a  personal  appearance  before  the  Board  in
unequivocal support of the applicant.

As a result of the reprisal EPR, the applicant’s opportunity  for  promotion
to chief master sergeant was  completely  eliminated  and  in  essence,  his
military career  progression  effectively  killed.   This  is  terrible  and
blatant injustice that he implores the Board to correct.  The  applicant  is
the epitome of the Air Force Senior NCO, possessing  the  highest  standards
of  integrity,  professionalism,  and  leadership.    Notwithstanding   this
reprisal EPR, the applicant’s career has been absolutely  stellar  from  the
very beginning.  The applicant was clearly tracked by his commanders  to  be
a chief master sergeant.  If it weren’t for the reprisal EPR he received  at
the hands of his vindictive commanders in the 58 SOW,  the  applicant  would
have been a chief master sergeant three years ago.

The gross and outrageous injustice is  clearly  evident  in  the  manner  in
which the certain 58 SOW commanders retaliated  against  the  applicant  for
upholding the standards and responsibilities of an SNCO and  rewarding  MSgt
B__ for her substandard, insubordinate,  and  disrespectful  behavior.   The
applicant received a reprisal EPR and MSgt B__ received a  “fire-wall  five”
EPR with senior rater’s indorsement.  It is sickening  to  think  that  this
corruption and treachery could happen in our Air Force today,  but  it  did.
If words such as “accountability,” “responsibility,” “service before  self,”
and “integrity  in  all  we  do”  mean  anything  in  our  Air  Force,  this
abomination must  be  rectified  by  removing  the  reprisal  EPR  from  the
applicant’s records and convening  a  Supplemental  Board  to  consider  his
promotion to chief master sergeant in  the  cycle  immediate  following  the
reprisal EPR.

It is unequivocally clear for anyone who review’s the applicant’s case  that
he was cast aside and sacrificed  by  his  commanders  as  they  insidiously
postured to protect their own careers and promotion potential.   In  his  27
years in the Air Force, he  has  never  seen  such  a  clear-cut  case  that
warrants recompense  and  relief.   He  is  eager  to  provide  any  further
information the Board requires to support the applicant’s case.

In a letter of 5 May 2004, CMSgt R__, stated that he wanted  to  immediately
and specifically address the direct issues that led to the reprisal  actions
against the applicant.  As the “hand-picked” Avionics Flight  Chief  in  the
58th Maintenance Squadron, the applicant  took  the  appropriate  corrective
counseling actions to address  the  substandard  performance  of  MSgt  B__.
These corrective measures were  directed  and  supported  by  his  chain  of
command to  include  his  immediate  supervisor,  CMSgt  J__  and  his  unit
Commander,  Lt  Col  R__.   As  a  result,  MSgt  B__  filed  a   completely
unsupported and unsubstantiated Military Equal Opportunity  (MEO)  complaint
against the applicant and the unit leadership.   Her  actions  triggered  an
immediate rush by the commander and supervisor to ensure no negative  impact
on their own careers by refusing to support the applicant,  even  after  the
formal investigation revealed and determined no basis or truth  to  the  MEO
complaint.   The  unit  commander,  to  further  ensure  he  pleased  senior
leadership in the  wing  who  could  impact  his  own  career,  removed  the
applicant from his key  leadership  position  and  downgraded  his  Enlisted
Performance Report.

As the Senior Enlisted Manager for the Group, he completely  disagreed  with
this unfair  action.   Senior  wing  leaders  however,  prevented  him  from
correcting this blatantly unjust reprisal.   They  tried  to  justify  their
actions by claiming that the applicant’s performance and  leadership  skills
were not up to standards.  Nothing could be farther  from  the  truth.   The
applicant’s stellar and  unblemished  career  has  been  truly  exceptional.
Anyone reviewing his record will clearly see the applicant’s  dedicated  and
professional  commitment  to  the  Air   Force   through   his   significant
accomplishments and awards.  The same senior wing leaders  who  based  their
actions against the applicant on account of  his  supposed  poor  leadership
skills had selected him as the Wing Senior Noncommissioned Officer (NCO)  of
the Year just the year before.  The applicant went on to  win  the  Kirtland
AFB Senior NCO of the Year.  Just months before  this  negative  action  the
applicant was also selected as the unit Leo Marquez Senior NCO of the Year.

The  applicant  through  numerous  investigative  procedures  has  presented
substantial and  clear  evidence  that  supports  how  he  was  wronged  and
unjustly cast aside by senior 58 SOW leaders.  These efforts never  resulted
in anyone, to include himself, being contacted directly to help uncover  and
correct this negative action against the applicant.   As  the  Group  Senior
Enlisted Manager, he had the applicant on the top of the list for  promotion
to chief master sergeant, a rank he earned through dedicated commitment  and
work to the Air Force and his country.  Despite all the actions against  the
applicant, he remains a true  and  hardworking  professional  continuing  to
lead from the front and contributing to the success of the Air  Force.   The
despicable  treatment  of  the  applicant  received  at  the  hands  of  his
supervisor and commanders should not go unchecked.  The integrity  and  high
ethical standards of our United States Air Force demands accountability  and
justice.  He implores this board to review and correct the  unfair  negative
actions against the applicant and promote him to Chief Master Sergeant.

Complete copies of the statements is at Exhibit I.


APPLICANT'S APPEARANCE AT FORMAL HEARING:

1.  The applicant appeared  before  the  Board  and  testified  under  oath.
During the hearing the applicant reiterated his  previous  contentions  that
he received a reprisal EPR for filing  a  HQ  AETC  Inspector  General  (IG)
complaint against his then squadron commander, Lt Col  L___.   Specifically,
he was reprised against on the EPR by CMSgt J___, Maj  S___,  Lt  Col  L___,
and Col C___.

2.  The  following  additional  information  was  provided  in  response  to
specific inquiries by the Board members:

      a.  When asked to elaborate on the reason for filing an  IG  complaint
and reprisal action, the  applicant  responded  by  stating  that  in  early
December if not November, he was told that the  Military  Equal  Opportunity
complaint filed by MSgt B__ was not  substantiated  and  there  was  nothing
found.  Meanwhile, there is no question that the ATC IG complaint was  filed
in January, probably he thinks the 17th.   Around  that  time  frame,  maybe
shortly after, Chief J__ had his talk with him and said, “Your EPR is  done.
 It’s a good one.  “Excellent work,  outstanding,”  the  whole  nine  yards.
“Go on to  Wing  Plans,”  his  new  job,  “make  Chief.”   However,  shortly
thereafter if not the first week of February,  Chief  J__  apparently  found
out about the ATC IG complaint he had filed and quite probably the  rest  of
the chain of command.  Because Chief J__ came back and  said,  “Oh,  by  the
way,” more or less, “your EPR is not done.  Chief J__ had heard that he  had
taken action outside the unit.  He said your EPR  is  not  done.   It’s  not
going to be done on the 29th of February. Then after he got the EPR and  saw
the EPR, that’s when he filed the Air Force reprisal complaint.


      b.  When asked the question did he  try  to  contact  Chief  J__,  his
rater, the applicant stated the Chief told  him  before  he  retired,  “Hey,
come talk to me after I retire and I will tell  you  the  whole  story.   He
would tell me what he  really  thinks.   Well,  some  time  after,  when  he
retired, a friend of his who is a Major came to  him  and  said,  “Hey,  you
might want to get with the Chief because maybe he  can  help  you  out  with
this now.” Get with the Chief, called him up.  He said  he  would  help  him
out.  He would meet with him and put down the truth,  what  really  happened
and how things took place.  It never  happened.   Moreover,  he  called  him
probably three months later and he said he was busy with work, and he  said,
“Yeah, I’m be there for you. I’m going  to  help  you  out.  You  were  done
wrong.”  However, he never did so and he never pressed the issue.   To  him,
he got the feeling that the Chief was scared.


      c.  When asked to elaborate on the CDI conclusion that there  were  no
reprisals, the applicant stated first, the  investigating  officer  did  not
investigate the reprisal.  She was investigating, he  assumed,  his  ATC  IG
complaint.  The ATC IG complaint that he filed,  from  what  he  understood,
was investigated.  ATC sent the complaint back down to the  wing.   Back  to
Col P__.  Well, Col P__ then had to basically direct somebody,  one  of  his
colonels, to do a CDI, command directed  inquiry.   First  off,  we  have  a
colonel in the wing, working for Col P__, who is going  to  investigate  one
of his commanders.   His  opinion  on  that  is,  the  subjectivity  or  the
objectivity could be a question.  Lt Col P__ works for Col P__.  She has  to
report to Col P__.  Another point, sixteen people were interviewed.  He  did
not know who they were because there were 1,200 people  in  the  wing.   Did
they talk to any of the people  he  recommended  or  suggested--he  did  not
know.


      d.  When asked the question if there were individuals that, other than
senior NCOs that had problems  with  his  management  style,  the  applicant
stated sure.  Now we’ve kind of whittled it down to the Avionics Flight.  He
came in as the new Flight Chief and it came down  to  the  new  kid  on  the
block.  He did his job as the Flight  Chief,  upheld  his  responsibilities,
and  corrected  improper,   inappropriate   behavior   when   he   saw   it.
Unfortunately, when you do that, you rattle people’s cages, people that  are
set in their ways, people that have been there for two or three years.   The
majority of those shop chiefs that worked for him, and there were five,  had
been there between two and four years if not more.  They  had  all  been  to
some degree stagnated, and that’s another thing Col L__ didn’t like.   These
people had been set in their ways.  They had it nice, as Col L__  told  him,
cushy--he couldn’t remember the exact terminology.  Unfortunately,  when  he
tried to correct it, no matter how gentle he was,  no  matter  how  soft  he
was, no matter how much he held their  hands,  some  people  were  going  to
resist.  And unfortunately we had one main player  that  was  very  defiant,
very  resistant,  and  unfortunately   an   informal   group   leader,   and
unfortunately very influential with the rest of the flight  chiefs,  or  the
shop chiefs.  He could understand perhaps why they were  upset,  because  he
knew that they couldn’t play ping-pong now.  He knew MSgt B__  had  to  come
to work.  She had to show up for work on time  like  everyone  else  in  the
flight.  Sergeant B__ was not allowed to use disparaging remarks  against  a
senior NCO, a Flight Chief.  He tried to work with the people as much as  he
could, but he knew when he saw something wrong, as the Flight Chief  he  had
to take some sort of action.


      e.  When asked was there any justification at all for his removal  and
markdown in leadership, the applicant responded none whatsoever.   If  there
was just cause for his removal, he might agree, but he saw no reason why  he
should have been removed.  And there are  many  people  that  are  “removed”
where their careers go right on.  Nevertheless, he did nothing wrong and  he
did his job as a senior NCO.

3.  Applicant's complete sworn testimony and his  response  to  the  Board's
questions are contained in the Transcript of Proceedings at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After carefully assessing the evidence  of
record, including the applicant's  sworn  testimony,  the  majority  of  the
Board is not persuaded the applicant has been the victim of either an  error
or injustice.  In  this  respect,  the  majority  of  the  Board  notes  the
following:

            a. The findings of the  Command  Directed  Investigation  (CDI),
which investigated the applicant’s allegations, revealed the  applicant  had
not been the victim of  reprisal  or  unfair  treatment  and  his  case  was
dismissed.  The CDI was reviewed by the SAF/IGS and DOD  and  these  offices
also found the  applicant’s  allegations  were  not  substantiated  and  the
applicant’s case was closed.

            b. While the applicant was directed to correct certain  problems
within his organization, it appears, based on the evidence of  record,  that
his rater was not satisfied with his leadership and management  approach  in
solving these problems.  Relieving the applicant of his  supervisory  duties
appears to be based on performance rather  than  applicant’s  allegation  of
reprisal for filing an IG complaint.  We find no evidence  that  there  were
any improprieties in the rating chain's  decision  to  relieve  him  of  his
supervisory duties or that  his  rating  chain  abused  their  discretionary
authority in doing so.  The contested EPR,  based  on  the  above  comments,
appears to be based on the rating  chain’s  perception  of  the  applicant’s
performance during the period in question.  After reviewing the  report,  we
believe that the  rating  chain  members’  comments  could  have  been  more
critical of the applicant’s performance had they desired to do so.

            c.  The  applicant’s  sworn  testimony  and  the  statements  he
provided from senior officials within his chain of command  were  thoroughly
reviewed. However, we do not believe  these  statements  provide  sufficient
justification  to  conclude  that  the  actions  taken  by  the  applicant’s
immediate commander were unjustified.  When asked  why  his  supervisor  did
not provide a statement during the  appeal  process,  the  applicant  stated
that he attempted to reach CMSgt J__,  but  was  unsuccessful.   Should  the
applicant obtain a  statement  from  CMSgt  J__,  we  would  be  willing  to
reconsider his application.

            d. The reference to a similar case that  this  Board  considered
and granted  relief  was  noted.   However,  after  reviewing  the  case  in
question, it appears that the Board believed  that  a  personality  conflict
existed and based on that conflict, the  individual’s  performance  was  not
accurately assessed.  In the applicant’s  case,  the  question  before  this
Board is whether or not his actions/performance  were  accurately  assessed.
As stated above, we found no reason to question the  rating  chain  members’
assessment of the applicant’s performance.

4.  In view of the above findings, the majority of the  Board  believes  the
applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence
to substantiate that he has been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
02532 in a Formal Hearing on 19 May 2004 and     24  June  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
            Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
            Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member
            Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
            Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

By a  majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended  denial  of  the  applicant's
requests.  Ms. Maust voted to grant the applicant's request, and elected  to
submit a minority report.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Commander Directed Investigation, dated 19 Jan 01. W/D
   Exhibit D.  Commander Directed Investigation, dated 27 Feb 01. W/D
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AETC/IGQ, dated 18 Oct 01. W/D
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Jul 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Jul 03.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
   Exhibit I.  Applicant Response, dated 18 Jan 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit J.  Minority Report, dated 1 Jul 04.
   Exhibit K.  Transcript of Proceedings, dated 19 May 04.





                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                             Chair






AFBCMR BC-2003-02009

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

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed all aspects of this case and do not agree
with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the applicant’s request
that the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 26 July
2000 through 4 December 2000 be removed from his record and he receive
supplemental promotion consideration to Chief Master Sergeant should be
denied.

      I have thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s available record, his
submission, and the minority report.  And, after consideration of all the
circumstances of this case I agree with the minority member of the panel
and believe the relief requested should be granted.

      Accordingly, it is my decision that the contested EPR be declared void
and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to Chief Master
Sergeant.






                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency
AFBCMR BC-2003-02009





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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the
Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 26
July 2000 through 4 December 2000, be, and hereby is, declared void
and removed from her records.

      It is further directed that the  applicant  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of Chief Master  Sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 01E9.

            If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental consideration that are separate and  apart,  and  unrelated  to
the issues  involved  in  this  applicant,  that  would  have  rendered  the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be  documented
and presented to the board for  a  final  determination  on  the  individual
qualification for the promotion.







      JOE G. LINEBERGER
      Director

                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency


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

Subject:  Minority Report - APPLICANT


     The majority of the panel recommends denial of the applicant's request
that the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the 26 July 2000
through 4 December 2000 be removed from his record because it was an
inaccurate assessment of his military service. I disagree with the Board
majority and believe that the evidence presented is sufficient to show the
applicant has been the victim of an injustice. I believe the EPR should be
removed and he should be granted supplemental promotion consideration to
Chief Master Sergeant (E-9).

     The evidence of record shows that the applicant, after having used
other appropriate avenues and being open and above board in his action,
filed an IG complaint. Prior to the contested report, the applicant's
career record as a senior noncommissioned officer had been outstanding. The
information provided by the applicant and others indicates that actions
taken - and not taken - by individuals in leadership position in the
organization created an atmosphere of confusion as to appropriate behavior
and a perception of favoritism to others in the unit.

     I am persuaded by the strong statements of support by senior officials
in the applicant's direct management chain willing to attest to the
character and integrity of the applicant to include the Deputy Logistics
Group Commander and the Chief Enlisted Manager for the Logistic Group. Also
convincing to me was the statement from the area defense counsel (ADC) that
represented him during the period in question. The ADC asserted the
applicant's unit leadership wanted him to take action to improve the unit's
performance. As a result of following this direction, he was faced with a
Military Equal Opportunity complaint by a female worker that was
unsubstantiated after investigation. He was then removed from his position
and given a lackluster EPR. The ADC also provides support concerning the
negative atmosphere of the organization. These statements support the
conclusion that the contested EPR is not an accurate assessment of the
applicant's performance and that the rater's ability to assess his
performance was biased due to the filing of the complaint.

     Furthermore, I am aware of a previous case approved by the Board, for
an officer assigned to the same Logistics Group during the same period.
This case described very similar events, involving the same individuals in
leadership positions and used the same witnesses to support removing an
officer performance report (OPR) from his records. This indicates to me
that there was a pattern or sequence of events that would support the claim
of injustice. I believe enlisted members deserve the same remedies as
officers.

     Therefore, in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice to
the applicant, I believe that the contested report should be declared void
and removed from record and he should receive supplemental promotion
consideration to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant.

      If  necessary, APPLICANT should be offered the opportunity to return
to active duty



                                        MARTHA MAUST
                                        Panel Member