RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01679
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  EUGENE FIDELL

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 APRIL 2007


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Field Grade Officer Performance  Report  (OPR)  rendered  for  the
period from 27 May 1990 to 31 July 1990, and any related correspondence,  be
removed from his records.

2.     His  1991  separation  from  the  Regular  Air  Force  and   honorary
retirement from the Air Force Reserve  (AFRes)  be  set  aside,  and  he  be
retroactively reinstated into the Regular Air Force.

3.    His corrected record be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Boards  (SSBs)  for  the  first  two
selection boards he would have been eligible to meet.

4.     He  be  retroactively  retired  from  the  Regular  Air  Force   upon
eligibility.

5.     In  the  alternative  to  the  above  requested  relief,  he  receive
retroactive constructive service credit in the Air National Guard  (ANG)  or
AFRes from 1991, he receive  SSB  consideration  to  the  Reserve  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the first two boards he would have  been  eligible  to
meet, and be  placed  in  a  non-Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  Individual
Mobilization Augmentee (IMA), Category B position; or  in  the  alternative,
he receive  constructive  service  credit  in  the  AFRes  until  retirement
eligibility, and retired accordingly.

6.    He receive such  other  thorough  and  fitting  relief  as  the  Board
determines just and proper.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR is erroneous/unjust and was used  to  unjustly  manipulate
his separation.

The report was written solely because of  misperceived  integrity  criticism
regarding his XXXXXXX application and was written without the benefit of  an
official complete copy of his XXXXXXX application.  As  a  result,  relevant
clarifying  and  explanatory  attachments  to  his  application  were  never
reviewed by the author of the report which gave an unjust impression of  his
application.  These attachments included his OPRs which listed  all  of  his
full and accurate job titles, position descriptions, and  duties,  in  exact
military terminology.  The negative comments contained in  the  report  only
reference this one event.  Further, the report is the only  negative  report
in his  otherwise  perfect  military  record  and  is  inconsistent  with  a
lifetime of demonstrated character.   Since  the  report  is  in  error  and
unjust it, along with any direct or indirect references made to  it,  should
be removed from his records and he  be  allowed  to  continue  his  military
career.  He never misrepresented his credentials in his XXXXXXX  application
as alleged, but rather attempted to  bridge  the  language  barrier  between
mismatched civilian and military programs, processes, and  standards.   This
dissonance  was  not  a  reflection   of   his   dishonestly,   but   rather
displacement.  Although the XXXXXXX  signed  the  report,  it  was  actually
written by his deputy, who commonly engaged in a pattern  of  torturing  out
of context the  narrow  language  of  a  matter  to  an  extreme,  and  then
vehemently  disagreeing  with  his  resulting  extreme.   This  over-zealous
practice was  obviously  applied  to  his  situation  when  this  individual
obtained  an  unofficial  incomplete  copy  of  his   confidential   XXXXXXX
application, in violation of law.  His application was a personal record  in
a system of records, with  access  limited  to  those  associated  with  the
XXXXXXX application to be used  for  the  purpose  of  screening  applicants
prior to interviews.

His separation was involuntary since he had no intent  or  desire  to  leave
his chosen profession, and but  for  the  contested  report  and  derivative
separation documents, would  have  continued  his  military  career  through
retirement.  The OPR mandate for  his  separation  was  widely  disseminated
throughout  the  Air  Staff  and  prevented  him  from  receiving   accurate
separation, early retirement, or potential  career  entitlement  counseling.
He was misled by the former top Air Force Legal Assistant Officer as to  the
impact the report would have on his ability to continue his  career  through
retirement with the AFRes or Air National Guard (ANG).  He  relied  on  this
misinformation and did not contest  the  separation  action.   Had  he  been
properly  briefed,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  would   have   accepted
separation so close to initial retirement eligibility.

Although it would fail to fully erase and compensate the injustices  of  his
active duty separation, his retroactive reinstatement  in  the  AFRes  would
permit him to earn his military retirement.  Since he would have  been  able
to immediately obtain a Reserve position  in  either  the  active  or  ready
reserves, but for the  contested  report,  constructive  service  credit  is
appropriate, in additional to promotion  opportunities  by  SSBs  until  his
retirement.  The Board would be granting “half-a-loaf” relief if it were  to
merely allow him to earn points for retirement.

In view of the institutional embarrassment and  exposure  of  administrative
errors by the XXXXXXX staff and  their  prolonged  refusal  to  provide  him
access to any appropriate corroborating support, his failure to timely  file
should  be  waived  in  the  greater  interest  of  fairness  and   justice.
Furthermore, in 2005, he  was  denied  entry  into  the  Ready  Reserves  to
complete his final years for retirement and was told  the  principle  reason
was  the  contested  report.   In  addition,  only  a  few  weeks  prior  to
submitting his application,  he  was  finally  able  to  obtain  consent  to
disclose the former Secretary’s identify and  principal  directing  role  in
his XXXXXXX application.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits the following:

      a.    A statement from a former Secretary of the  Air  Force,  stating
that it was highly inappropriate for  the  confidential  application  to  be
unlawfully released to Air Force personnel not associated with the XXXXXXX.

      b.    A statement from a former XXXXXXX commissioner,  who states that
due to a tendency of XXXXXXX applications from military officers to  include
confusing and lengthy military terminologies or acronyms  thereby  weakening
the impact of their applications,  he  advised  the  applicant  and  another
officer to use more concise, understandable, and impactful  descriptions  of
their  military   positions,   roles,   and   responsibilities,   in   their
applications to avoid confusing the many civilian reviewers.


      c.    A statement from another former XXXXXXX commissioner, who states
that  when  considering  the  totality  of  the  applicant’s  full   XXXXXXX
application it was quite clear that his entries were  valid,  and  that  his
application was a good faith representation of his  extraordinary  life  and
career.   He  further  states  the  Air  Force   officer   criticizing   the
application was in possession  of  an  incomplete,  unofficial  application,
which included all of the applicant’s OPRs.  He notes this is  an  important
point not only to comply  with  the  principles  of  complete  and  accurate
federal records, but also because the  applicant  had  voluntarily  attached
his OPRs, which allowed him to enter more brief and  less  confusing  titles
and position information in his application, as advised by another  seasoned
XXXXXXX commissioner.

Applicant’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Upon graduation from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), on 2  June
1976, he was commissioned a second  lieutenant  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) and entered active duty.   He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of major, effective and with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 November 1986.

In December 1989, he applied for a XXXXXXX and was selected.

He was considered  Below-the-Promotion  Zone  (BPZ)  and  not  selected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 1990A  (CY
90A) BPZ Central Selection Board, that convened on 16 January 1990.

On 20 September 1990, he received a referral OPR, rendered  for  the  period
28 May 1990 through 31 July  1990,  with  an  attached  referral  Letter  of
Evaluation (LOE), AF  Form  77,  Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet,  dated  14
September 1990.  On 27 September 1990, he  submitted  rebuttal  comments  to
the report, with attachments.  After considering the  matters  submitted  by
applicant, on 24 October 1990, the additional rater signed  the  report  and
it became a matter of record.

On 31 October  1990,  he  voluntarily  tendered  his  resignation  from  the
Regular Air Force, which was accepted by the Secretary of the Air  Force  on
15 November 1990.

He was separated from the Regular Air  Force  on  12 July  1991,  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-12, Voluntary Resignation: Completion  of  Active  Duty
Service Commitment, and  issued  an  Honorable  Discharge  Certificate.   He
completed 15 years, 1 month, and 11 days of active duty.

On 18 February 2005, he was notified that his application for assignment  to
The Judge Advocate General’s Corps  Reserve  (JAGCR)  was  reviewed  by  The
Judge Advocate General (TJAG) and he was not  offered  an  assignment  as  a
Category B IMA.

Applicant applied to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB)  requesting
the contested report be removed from his records.  By letter  of  29  August
2005, the ERAB officially notified him the  contested  report  should  never
have been written and directed its removal from his  records.   However,  it
was later determined they lacked the authority to do so since the  applicant
was no longer on active duty and  the  contested  report  is  filed  in  the
applicant’s Master Personnel Record (MPR).

Applicant’s performance profile since 1984 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING               EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

              28 Mar 84                          1-1-1
              14 Nov 84, w/LOE                   1-1-1
              19 Mar 85                          1-1-1
              19 Sep 85                          1-1-1
              17 Jan 86                          1-1-1




Applicant’s performance profile continued:

            PERIOD ENDING               EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

              19 Aug 86                          1-1-1
              19 Aug 88                    Meets Standards (MS)
             *27 May 89                             MS
             27 May 90                        MS
            **31 Jul 90                 MS on all standards except
                                        Leadership Skills,
                                       Professional Qualities, and
                                       Judgment and Decisions

* Top report reviewed by the CY90B Selection Board

** Contested referral report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AF/JAA recommends the application be denied, noting  that  it  was  untimely
filed and lacks merit.  AF/JAA notes the following:

      a.    The application should be denied as untimely since it was  filed
more than 15 years after  the  report  was  a  matter  of  record.   In  the
alternative, it should be  denied  due  to  a  lack  of  merit.   While  the
applicant  attempts  to  explain  the  delay  through  a  bizarre  tale   of
bureaucratic intrigue, the  issue  is  not  the  viability  of  the  XXXXXXX
Program or the career  aspirations  of  certain  political  appointees,  but
whether the referral report was properly accomplished.

      b.    AFPC/DPPEP’s opinion that the contested report should  not  have
been written  is  based  on  the  erroneous  application  of  the  governing
regulation.  The LOE was a referral report and covered a period of 65  days.
 Further, there was a Change in Reporting Official (CRO) and  the  applicant
had not applied for separation until after receiving the report.

      c.    Although the applicant  characterizes  his  actions  differently
than his supervisor would, it is the prerogative of  a  supervisor  to  rate
the subordinate.  He does not allege  bad  faith,  reprisal,  or  other  ill
motives  to  the  rater,  and  acknowledges  the  merits  of   the   rater’s
perspective.

       d.     While  he  contends  he  was  following  the  ranking  XXXXXXX
Commissioner’s directions, given the large percentage of  military  officers
obtaining  XXXXXXX  (1/3),  the  XXXXXXX  board  members  undoubtedly   were
familiar with military terms and concepts.  Further, there  is  no  evidence
the other military members misrepresented, or were advised to  misrepresent,
their credentials.  He is responsible and accountable  for  the  application
he signed and submitted regardless of whatever advice he received.

      e.    He was interviewed by his  rater  and  had  the  opportunity  to
provide all relevant and important details.  He also had an  opportunity  to
do so in his response to the referral report.  Since he had the  opportunity
to correct any misperceptions of an incomplete application at  the  time  of
the referral report, it is untimely at this point.

      f.    As an Air Force  officer  applying  to  an  official  Air  Force
sponsored program, his application and its  contents  are  not  confidential
but are of interest to the Air Force.  He was on duty 24  hours  a  day  and
seven days a week, and as such, his action both on and off duty are  subject
to  court-martial  or  administrative  sanction.    Without   question   any
misrepresentations on his  application  can  form  the  basis  for  official
action.

      g.    Although he may feel the report is inconsistent with a  lifetime
of character, the report documented his performance  during  the  period  of
the report.

      h.    The fact he voluntarily chose to separate and did not choose  to
appeal the report, indicates he did not intend to remain  in  the  military.
Given his completion of  the  highly  competitive  XXXXXXX  Program,  it  is
reasonable to conclude that he made a  conscious  and  voluntary  choice  to
pursue career options outside the military,  notwithstanding  the  contested
report.  Further, as a judge advocate, he should have been aware that  legal
assistance attorneys do not provide career counseling.

      i.    He did not pursue entry  into  the  participating  reserves  for
over 14 years after his separation.  It is entirely likely  that  a  14-year
gap in service made him less competitive for a position in the reserves.

      j.    Absent judge advocate certification and designation, he will  be
unable to perform duties as a judge advocate.

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

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  request  to  remove  the
contested report from his records.  The report was required  due  to  a  CRO
and since there was less than 120 days  of  supervision,  the  rater  had  a
choice to render an optional LOE, which he chose to do.   Because  it  would
have contained referral remarks, an OPR would have been required as long  as
there were 60 days of supervision.  In his  case,  there  were  65  days  of
supervision.  Although they  previously  determined  the  report  should  be
removed, they subsequently found they lacked the authority to  do  so  since
the applicant was no  longer  on  active  duty.   Furthermore,  their  prior
recommendation was made based on the absence of evidence  indicating  a  CRO
took place.  However, they have since discovered evidence  that  a  CRO  did
occur and conclude the report was valid.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial  of   the   applicant’s   request   for   SSB
consideration since he has not shown the contested report was  in  error  or
unjust.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

On 16 August 2006, SAF/GC was requested to provide an advisory  opinion  and
the applicant’s counsel was advised accordingly;  however,  on  26  February
2007, SAF/GC was advised that an advisory opinion would not be required.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant’s counsel reviewed  the  evaluations  and  states,  in  part,  the
following:

      a.    The failure to timely file should be waived since the  applicant
was rejected for ANG and AFRes positions within three years  of  his  AFBCMR
petition, i.e., 2004 and 2005, respectively.  Further, it is uncontested  by
the evaluations that applicant was unable  to  locate  necessary  witnesses.
Further, after repeated attempts to affiliate with the ANG and AFRes he  was
advised the referral report was an insuperable obstacle and that  he  should
allow some time to pass so the damage from the report would abate.

      b.    The favorable decision of the ERAB has been  executed  and  must
be given effect.  In accordance with the  governing  Air  Force  Instruction
(AFI), the ERAB has the power to  direct  corrections  to  reports  and  the
final decisional authority is the ERAB President.  It does not  provide  for
appeals  by  other  Air  Force  offices,  such  as  the  Administrative  Law
Division, of favorable ERAB decisions.  The ERAB’s  decision  is  final  and
not subject to review.  A contrary ruling would violate  the  rule  that  an
officer cannot be made worse off than before as a  result  of  action  by  a
correction board.  The ERAB  officially  notified  the  applicant  of  their
favorable decision and even memorialized the fact that no AF Form  77  would
be prepared because no report should ever have been generated.  As  evidence
the ERAB’s decision was implemented, the applicant obtained a hard  copy  of
his entire Master Personnel Record (MPR) in 2005 and the report was  not  in
his record.  Furthermore, it would be profoundly unjust  to  roll  back  the
ERAB’s decision, since the applicant has  advised  potential  employers  the
report had been removed from his military record.

      c.    The report is unfair  because  it  concerns  extraneous  matters
other than the applicant’s performance and the superficial  litany  of  sins
contained therein, are at worst in the category of “puffing.”   The  XXXXXXX
application is an advocacy document to  use  in  the  selection  of  XXXXXXX
candidates by civilians and is not intended  to  be  the  equivalent  of  an
officer’s official personnel  file,  to  be  read  by  experienced  eyes  of
uniformed  selection  board  members.    Moreover,   since   the   applicant
voluntarily provided  supporting  documents  to  ensure  full  and  accurate
disclosure, which included his OPRs, he never intended to deceive.

      d.    The manner in which the report was prepared speaks  volumes  and
bears directly on its trustworthiness.  In this regard, counsel  notes  that
in the 1990-1991 XXXXXXX cycle, the applicant was one  of  three  Air  Force
JAG officers who were XXXXXXX finalists.   The  applicant  was  one  of  two
selected.  However, the third, a popular and equally  highly  qualified  JAG
was not selected.  This individual’s mentor had previously headed the  AF/JA
Management Division and prevailed upon the Chief of the  General  Litigation
Division and Management Division officials to  illegally  obtain  a  partial
copy of the applicant’s XXXXXXX application  from  the  political  appointee
responsible for administration of the XXXXXXX Program, without his  consent.
 The release of XXXXXXX applications is limited to  a  congressional  office
from the record of  an  individual  in  response  to  an  inquiry  from  the
congressional office made at the request of the individual, the  release  of
his XXXXXXX.  In view of this and since the  applicant  never  provided  his
consent, the release of the protected XXXXXXX application was  unlawful  and
all resultant actions should be set aside.

In further  support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant’s  counsel  submits  a
statement from the former Air Force Legal Assistant  Officer  that  provided
him legal counsel concerning the referral report,  the  former  Staff  Judge
Advocate  (SJA)  for  the  Maryland  ANG  and  copies  of  electronic   mail
concerning the applicant’s attempts to obtain a JAG  position  in  the  ANG,
and a Notice of System of Records for XXXXXXX.  The former Air  Force  Legal
Assistant Officer states, in part, that after conferring with the  Executive
Officer to TJAG, he suggested the applicant leave  active  duty  and  if  he
desired to continue his military career, he do so in  the  ANG  since  state
JAG  appointments  were  not  controlled  by  the  TJAG,  unlike  AFRes  JAG
appointments.

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

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice to warrant removing the contested  OPR  from
the  applicant’s  records.   The  contested  report  was  referred  to   the
applicant based on comments that he misrepresented his  credentials  in  his
application to the XXXXXXX commission  and  three  performance  factors  not
meeting standards, i.e.,  Leadership  Skills,  Professional  Qualities,  and
Judgment and Decisions.  We note that during the XXXXXXX  selection  process
applicants undergo a complete full  field-investigation  by  OPM  validating
the details of their applications and the commissioners conduct a series  of
intense interviews of all  the  finalists.   The  applicant  underwent  this
process and  was  selected  for  a  XXXXXXX.  Subsequent  to  his  selection
allegations were brought to his rating chain’s attention that  he  may  have
misrepresented his credentials.  While the manner in  which  an  incomplete,
unofficial copy of his XXXXXXX application was obtained by the Air Force  is
somewhat troubling, as a member of the armed forces, his actions on and  off
duty can serve as the basis for official action.  As such, we  do  not  find
it unusual that his application would be  of  interest  to  the  Air  Force.
However, we find it unjust that his rating chain  would  determine  that  he
had misrepresented  his  credentials  based  on  an  incomplete  application
before them, which did not contain  many  of  the  relevant  clarifying  and
explanatory  attachments.   We  find   this   especially   disturbing   when
considering  the  XXXXXXX  office,  which  had  access   to   his   complete
application, ultimately cleared him of the allegations and he completed  his
full XXXXXXX year  with  honor  and  distinction.   Several  former  XXXXXXX
commissioners  have  provided  supporting  statements  on  the   applicant’s
behalf, to include a former acting Secretary of  the  Air  Force,  a  former
cabinet member, and a former executive assistant  to  the  General  Counsel,
Department  of  Transportation.   These  statements   indicate   that   when
considering the totality of the full application, it was clear  his  entries
were valid, a good faith representation of his life/career,  and  were  made
based on the advise he had received from a former XXXXXXX commissioner.   In
this respect, the former XXXXXXX commissioner that counseled  the  applicant
in this regard states that due to a tendency of  XXXXXXX  applications  from
military   officers   to   include   confusing    and    lengthy    military
terminologies/acronyms thereby weakening the impact of  their  applications,
he told the applicant  and  another  officer,  that  they  should  use  more
concise, understandable, and  “impactful”  descriptions  of  their  military
positions, roles, and  responsibilities,  in  their  applications  to  avoid
confusing the many civilian reviewers.   In  view  of  this,  and  since  he
provided  relevant  clarifying/explanatory  attachments  with  his   XXXXXXX
application, to include copies of his OPRs, we fail to see any deception  on
his part or any attempt to misrepresent his credentials.  To  the  contrary,
based on the evidence before us, it appears his actions were  a  good  faith
effort to follow the advice of a former XXXXXXX  commissioner  in  preparing
his application.  Given the totality of the evidence before us,  noting  the
applicant’s otherwise stellar record of performance, and in great  deference
to the supporting statements  from  the  former  XXXXXXX  commissioners,  we
believe the applicant has met his burden  of  establishing  that  sufficient
doubt exists as to the accuracy of  the  contested  report.   Therefore,  we
recommend the contested report be  removed  from  the  applicant’s  records.
However, since it  was  never  a  matter  of  record  during  any  promotion
consideration,  there  exists  no  basis  upon  which   to   recommend   SSB
consideration.

4.  Notwithstanding the  above,  insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been
presented to demonstrate the existence  of  error  or  injustice  warranting
further relief.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record  and
noting  the  applicant’s  contentions,  we  are  not  persuaded   that   his
separation was involuntary or that he  would  have  continued  his  military
career through retirement but for the contested report.  While  clearly  the
contested referral OPR had a negative impact, it was not the cause  for  his
separation, or his voluntary resignation of his commission.  He contends  he
was  officially  advised  of  several  additional  career  penalties  if  he
remained on active  duty  and  was  coerced  into  separating;  however,  he
provides no evidence in support of this contention.  The  fact  remains,  he
voluntarily chose to separate, rather than remain on active duty and  appeal
the report.  He could have remained on active duty,  faced  the  accusations
against him, and availed himself of all rights to  which  he  was  entitled.
After  considering  all  of  his  options,  it  appears  he  determined  his
separation was in his best interest.  Although  he  now  contends,  some  14
years later, the XXXXXXX office staff’s prolonged  refusal  to  provide  him
access to any appropriate corroborating support left him  without  immediate
recourse, we do not believe this, in and of its  self,  precluded  him  from
appealing the report prior to his 12 July  1991  separation.   We  recognize
the contested OPR may have been a contributing factor in  his  inability  to
gain entry into a participating Reserve position in 2004/2005;  however,  so
too may have been his decision to wait 14 years prior to seeking  a  reserve
position.  Although he contends his multi-faceted  efforts  in  finding  any
reserve or guard positions were refused by  recruiters  from  each  category
due to the contested report, there is no  documentary  evidence  to  support
that he pursued a reserve/guard position until 2004/2005.   Furthermore,  we
find no evidence that he  has  ever  requested  a  non-JAG  IMA  assignment.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend favorable consideration of  the  remainder  of
his requests.

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 the Field Grade Officer  Performance
Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 27 May  1990  through  31 July
1990, be declared void and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
01679 in Executive Session on 27 February 2007, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

            Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
            Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
            Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 2005, w/atchs &
                 Letter, dated 27 Sep 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memo, AFPC/DPF, dated 9 Nov 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Memo, AF/JAA, dated 29 Nov 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Memo, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 12 Jan 06.
     Exhibit F.  Memo, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 Mar 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Memo, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 29 Mar 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 5 May 06.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Jun 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, Counsel, dated 16 Aug 06.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2005-01679




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 Field Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 27 May
1990 through 31 July 1990, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records.







            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency