RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01743

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  BARRY P. STEINBERG

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Officer  Effectiveness  Reports  (OERs)  and  Officer  Performance
Reports (OPRs) rendered during the period 18 October 1981  through  21  June
1992, be amended to remove sexist comments, inappropriate allusions to  race
and other statements/observations that would never  have  been  made  for  a
male, non-minority officer.

2.    The OPR, closing 21 June 1992, be included in  her  Officer  Selection
Record (OSR) for the 21 September 2004 Special Board  convened  pursuant  to
the court approved settlement in Berkley v. Unites States.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

References to civilian clothing for a female,  repeated  detail  to  command
minority programs, and comments with respect to  those  programs  placed  an
undue emphasis on matters  that  were  impermissible  for  consideration  by
selection boards.

Counsel states that applicant is a class member of a pending  litigation  in
the United States Court of Federal Claims.  As a result of  the  settlement,
applicant’s record will be reconsidered as it appeared before  the  original
Fiscal  Year  1993  (FY93)  Reduction-in-Force  (RIF)   board.    Prior   to
applicant’s consideration, the contested reports should be corrected.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Air Force  Reserve  in  the  grade  of
major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for retention in the Air Force  by
the FY93 RIF board which convened on 20 July 1992.

Applicant is to be reconsidered for retention  by  the  Calendar  Year  2004
Special  Board  on  21 September  2004,  pursuant  to  the   court   ordered
settlement in Berkley v. Unites States.  The court order agreement  provides
individuals the right to request corrections to their  records  pursuant  to
existing procedures.

Applicant’s OER/OPR profile prior to the FY93 RIF board, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  *29 Jul 82                     2-2-2
                  * 8 Feb 83                     1-X-1
                  * 8 Aug 83                     1-1-1
                  * 8 Feb 84                     1-X-1
                  * 8 Aug 84                     1-X-1
                  *30 Jul 85                     1-1-X
                  *30 Jul 86                     1-1-1
                  *19 Dec 86   Training Report, w/Letter of Evaluation
                  *19 Dec 87                     1-1-1
                  *19 Dec 88               Meets Standards (MS)
                  *21 Jun 89                       MS
                  *21 Jun 90                       MS
                 #*21 Jun 91                       MS

# Top report reviewed by the FY93 RIF board.

* Contested reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of applicant’s requests to remove the  comments
or words from all but two of the contested reports.  The report,  closing  8
August 1984, should have the  word  “pleasingly”  removed  and  the  report,
closing 30 July 1986, should have the word/phrase  “…both  military  uniform
and civilian attire” removed.  The remainder of the  contested  reports  are
accurate as written and the comments contained  therein  appropriate  during
the respective timeframe, especially the comments  regarding  her  off  duty
activities.  The comments were the “style”  of  writing  for  the  specified
reporting periods and  it  is  nearly  impossible  to  compare  the  writing
“style” from 20 years ago with the writing “style” today.   The  reports  of
all officers were written with  the  same  “style”  during  the  periods  in
question.  AFPC/JA has reviewed the case and concurs with the assessment.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AF/JAA concurs with AFPC/DPPPE’s recommendation since the word  “pleasingly”
and  the  phrase  “both  military   uniform   and   civilian   attire”   are
inappropriate.  AF/JAA states in part, the  governing  regulation  prohibits
comments or references to race, ethnic origin, gender, age, or  religion  of
the  ratee  when  the  references  could  be   interpreted   as   reflecting
unfavorably on the person.  In the applicant’s case, the contested  comments
on the remainder of her reports were positive, could not be  interpreted  as
unfavorable,  and  were  not  prohibited  by   the   governing   regulation.
Therefore, AF/JAA recommends denial of the remainder of her requests.

The AF/JAA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Counsel states that while there is no direct  comment  on  race  or  gender,
logical inferences to  be  drawn  from  repeated  allusions  to  applicant’s
activities are nothing more than subtle and clearly perceptible comments  on
her race and gender.  The issue is not the intent of the  authors  of  these
comments,  but  the  message  perceived  by  a  reasonable   board   member.
Fundamental fairness and sound personnel management  mandate  the  requested
deletions be made.

Counsel complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of applicant’s  request  to  include  the  OPR,
closing 21 June 1992, in her OSR for the Special Board.  AFPC/DPPPO  states,
in part, that although the report closed out prior to the convening  of  the
FY93 RIF board, the reviewer did not  finalize  it  until  24  August  1992.
Further, the rater took no action to complete  his  assessment  until  after
the Board convened.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states the 21  July  1992  OPR  was  delayed  through  no  fault  of
applicant.  Although the  OPR  closed  out  prior  to  the  FY93  RIF  board
convening, it was held up for unexplained reasons for  a  protracted  period
and the delay produced no  change  in  the  report.   The  report’s  absence
leaves her  unevaluated  for  a  lengthy  and  critical  period  immediately
preceding the original board.

Counsel complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________


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  error  or  injustice  to   warrant   amending   the   Officer
Effectiveness Reports (OERs), closing 8 August 1984 and 30  July  1986,  and
placing the Officer Performance Report  (OPR),  closing  21  June  1992,  in
applicant’s Officer  Selection  Record  (OSR)  for  the  21  September  2004
Special Board convened pursuant to the court approved settlement in  Berkley
v.  Unites  States.   In  this  respect,  we  note  the  phrase  “pleasingly
aggressive,” contained in the rater’s comments  of  the  report,  closing  8
August 1984, was inappropriate since the reference softens or feminizes  the
word aggressive.  The appropriate offices of the Air Force have  recommended
the word “pleasingly” be removed; however, we believe the word  “aggressive”
could be interpreted as reflecting unfavorably on  applicant.   In  view  of
this, we recommend the phrase “pleasingly aggressive” be replaced  with  the
word “assertive.”  In addition, the OER, closing 30 July 1986, contains  the
sentence “Her appearance  is  outstanding,  both  in  military  uniform  and
civilian  attire”  that  was  also  inappropriate.   Although   the   remedy
recommended by the appropriate offices of the Air Force  is  to  remove  the
words “both” and “civilian  attire,”  we  believe  the  sentence  should  be
replaced  with  the  sentence,  “Her  appearance  is  always   outstanding.”
Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to  the  extent
indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice  concerning  the  remainder  of  applicant’s
requests.  After thoroughly reviewing the contested reports and  noting  the
objectionable language was the “writing style” for all  Air  Force  officers
during the period in question, we are not persuaded the  contested  comments
could be  interpreted  as  reflecting  unfavorably  on  applicant.   To  the
contrary, they appear to be complimentary,  positive,  and  appropriate  for
the blocks in which they were  written.   As  such,  their  removal  in  our
opinion, could  conceivably  be  detrimental  to  applicant.   Counsel  also
requests the OPR, closing 21 June 1992, be filed in applicant’s OSR for  the
Special  Board;  however,  the  rating  officials  did  not  complete  their
assessment until after the board  convened.   Counsel  contends  the  report
should have been in applicant’s OSR for the FY93 RIF board; however, he  has
not provided any statements from the  rating  officials  indicating  it  was
their intention, or what action they took,  to  have  the  report  finalized
prior to the FY93 RIF board.  Although the report closed out  prior  to  the
convening of the FY93 RIF board,  the  rating  officials  did  not  complete
their assessment until after the board convened.  In view of the  fact  that
the OPR, closing 21 June 1992 was not required to be a matter of  record  at
the time the FY93 RIF board convened, we find no compelling basis  to  treat
the  applicant  differently  from   other   officers   similarly   situated.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend favorable consideration of  the  remainder  of
the relief requested.

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

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

      a.    The Officer Effectiveness Report (OER), AF  Form  707,  rendered
for the period 9  February  1984  through  8  August  1984,  be  amended  by
deleting the first sentence in Section VI,  Rater  Comments,  and  replacing
with the sentence “An officer  that  is  assertive,  highly  motivated,  and
extremely well organized, Lt XXXXX consistently produces positive results.”

      b.    The OER, AF Form 707, rendered  for  the  period  31  July  1985
through 30 July 1986, be amended by deleting the first sentence in Block  9,
Professional Qualities, of Section III, Performance Factors,  and  replacing
with the sentence “Her appearance is always outstanding.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2004-01743
in Executive Session on 20 September 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
                       Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 3 May & 7 Sep 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AF/JAA, dated 19 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Aug 04.





    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 31 Aug 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 13 Sep 04.
    Exhibit H.  Email, Counsel, dated 16 Sep 04.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-01743




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:

            a.   The Officer Effectiveness Report (OER), AF Form 707,
rendered for the period 9 February 1984 through 8 August 1984, be, and
hereby is, amended by deleting the first sentence in Section VI, Rater
Comments, and replacing with the sentence “An officer that is assertive,
highly motivated, and extremely well organized, Lt XXXX consistently
produces positive results.”

            b.   The OER, AF Form 707, rendered for the period 31 July 1985
through 30 July 1986, be, and hereby is, amended by deleting the first
sentence in Block 9, Professional Qualities, of Section III, Performance
Factors, and replacing with the sentence “Her appearance is always
outstanding.”










JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency