RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00787
		INDEX CODE:  107.00, 111.01
		131.00, 136.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

a.  Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Feb 00 through 10 Jul 00, be removed from her records.

b.  She be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC).

c.  She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

d.  Her records be corrected to reflect that she retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel with 20 years of active service.

e.  Her honor be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In July 2000,she was removed from command upon five grounds that were found to be unsubstantiated in a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI).  Male commanders whose misconduct was much more severe were routinely treated much more favorably than she was, a fact which was ignored by her chain of command, the Inspector General (IG), and General Counsel.  Applicant believes she is the victim of discrimination based on gender.  

She was removed from command immediately after the conclusion of a CDI that investigated a multitude of charges made against her by a pair of disgruntled senior NCOs.  The investigating officer (IO) determined that some of the alleged events had occurred but found no gross violation of law or regulation.  He refused to consider the fact that one of the NCOs had recently perjured himself under oath during a court martial and that other NCOs questioned were ones she had just disciplined and removed from supervisory responsibilities.  Her command found that five of the allegations warranted a Letter of Admonishment (LOA).  

She asked for copies of the documentation used to determine the decision to remove her from command, but was refused.  Her commander lost faith in her ability to command because he read and accepted that portion of the CDI referenced in the LOA as well as the rumors that she was never made aware of or given an opportunity to rebut.  Through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process, she was able to review the CDI.  Had her commander been informed that the CDI had no basis in law or fact, that male commanders were treated differently from female commanders within his wing, and that there was no basis in the rumors, there is no reason to believe that he would have continued with the LOA and removed her from command.  

Applicant asks that the Board consider and reject each of the findings in the LOA.  The IO substantiated five allegations that were not grounded in fact.  In the case of the three Air Force Association (AFA) allegations, they were contrary to policy letters issued by the Chief of Staff.  With respect to her conduct surrounding an AFA golf tournament, the CDI alleged that she applied command pressure to an NCO to run the golf tournament.  Both she and the NCO testified that he volunteered his services, however, because he had been convicted of an embezzlement charge, the IO concluded that the arrangement was involuntary.  In the case of the improper PRP certification charge, she was charged with submitting undue and improper requests from General K----.  He has been cleared of those charges and been confirmed by the Senate for promotion subsequent to her removal from office.  

She has previously submitted requests for relief to SAF/IG, DOD/IG, and SAF/GC, however all have refused to look at the validity of the underlying CDI, but instead assumed that it was valid on its face.  Her letter to SAF/GC shows that the LOA was issued without basis, justice, or fairness.  A commander, properly informed of the facts and aware of the Air Force zero tolerance policies for sex discrimination would not have removed her from command.  

She submitted an application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB) to have the OPR removed but her request was denied.  Her July 2000 OPR should be removed and she should be awarded an MSM to document the contributions she made while in command.  Because she was an outstanding officer up to the time of her improper removal from command, she should be promoted to lieutenant colonel.  Performance is the basis for promotion and there is no documentation to the contrary, only documentation that amounts to personality differences based on differing beliefs and unfair judgments of her personal life and personality.  Since there is no way to replace the improper OPR with an OPR that accurately reflects her accomplishments the only way to make her whole is by promotion.  With a performance gap created by a missing OPR, her chances for promotion to lieutenant colonel are unjustly sabotaged.  

Applicant asked that the Board visit websites devoted to women in the military and read the briefings on sexual trauma she provided.  She quotes an article from the militarywomen.org website which talks about problems of sexual harassment and rape, which she has experienced over the years.  She provided several witnesses that could have countered all the allegations and rumors, yet none of the witnesses were contacted.  Some of the witnesses who tried to support her vindication during the formal questioning were met by biased and agenda driven investigators whose obvious purpose was to support the agenda of removing her from command without regard to the true merits of her case.  

In support of her request applicant provided documents associated with her retirement pay estimates, life expectancy information, documents associated with her ERAB application, character references, documents associated with her nonselection for promotion, a recommended MSM citation, documents associated with her CDI, documents associated with her IG requests, OPRs rendered between 1 Feb 99 and 10 Jul 00, a sexual trauma briefing, printouts from the militrywoman.org website, and a letter from her daughter.  Her complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 23 May 85 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 1 Jul 85.  She was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 19 Dec 88.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 97.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0500A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, that convened on 28 Nov 00.

The following is a resume of her OPR profile subsequent to her promotion to the grade of major:

		PERIOD ENDING			OVERALL EVALUATION

	01 Feb 98	MEETS STANDARDS MS)
	01 Feb 99			(MS)
	01 Feb 00			(MS)
	10 Jul 00 *			(MS)

* - Contested Report

On 1 Mar 01, applicant requested and received approval, as an Exception to Policy, for retirement from the Air Force under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA).  She was retired from the Air Force on 1 Aug 01.  She had served 16 years, 2 months, and 8 days on active duty.

On 6 Apr 00, the Commander, --- Support Group, directed that a CDI be conducted to investigate allegations made against the applicant.  The allegations include two violations of the Military Leave Program, five violations of the Joint Ethics Regulation, a violation of the Private Organization Program, six occasions of abuse of her authority, three incidents of actions that were unprofessional and unbecoming of an officer, and violation of the Nuclear Weapons Reliability Program.  The CDI Report of Investigation and the SAF/IGS Report of Investigation (ROI) are appended at Exhibits I and J.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application and recommends denial.  DPPPR states that the recommending official initiates, prepares, and signs recommendations for decorations.  An individual cannot recommend himself/herself for a decoration, as the applicant has done.  AFI 36-2803 clearly states that an individual in not automatically entitled to a decoration upon departure for another assignment.  After thoroughly reviewing the case for proper administration of procedures for a recommendation or decision to not recommend the applicant for a decoration, no error in procedures was found.  Ultimately, it is the recommending official’s responsibility to determine if a recommendation for a decoration is warranted.  The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C

AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this application and recommends denial.  DPPPE states that the ERAB found the report to be an accurate assessment of her duty performance during the specified time.  She did not provide any supporting documentation on her behalf to prove her removal as commander and subsequent documentation on her OPR was unjust.  She has failed to identify any discrepancies with the CDI that lead to her relief of command.  Furthermore, she did not provide supporting documentation to support her claim of bias or unfair assessment (see Exhibit D).

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed this application, concurs with the findings of DPPPE, and recommends denial (see Exhibit E).

AFPC/JA reviewed this application and recommends denial.  JA states that there is no evidence to support her assertion that the IO was investigating her for homosexual conduct.  None of the questions asked were designed to ferret out any such information.  One of the witnesses stated that she viewed a picture in which it appeared she was kissing a stripper.  The witness was not certain if the stripper was a man or a woman.  The issue was not pursued further by the IO nor mentioned in the report or recommendations.  There is no evidence that any action was taken against the applicant as a result of this information.

It would appear that the applicant asks the Board to atone for years of sexual abuse/harassment allegedly heaped upon her and other women in the services over a generation.  But, it is not the issue here; nor is it the charter of the Board to fix societal wrongs.  When considering her failure to submit evidence, especially in light of the CDI’s substantiation of allegations and the poor state of her unit under her leadership, she has failed to meet her burden.  

The record shows that she openly discussed her personal life in the workplace.  Witnesses suggested that they or their coworkers were uncomfortable because she discussed her sex life in a graphic manner in the workplace.  How a commander presents his/her personal life in the workplace can in some cases create a hostile work environment and in some cases be a matter for an IO to pursue.  A commander can forfeit her right to claim her personal life enjoys extra protection when she herself brought it into the workplace.  There is no evidence the IO pursued this course or used matters alluded to in arriving at his findings and conclusions.  There is no evidence that the commander relied on it as a basis for admonishing the applicant.

Her contention that the commander made his decision to relieve her from command based on rumors within the CDI is sheer speculation on her part.  She has not submitted any evidence to support her claim and there is no evidence that he relied on rumors as a basis for admonishing her or relieving her from command.  The CDI revealed that her unit was suffering from broken morale.  The fact that such bitter divisiveness over the commander existed in the command ultimately provided a basis for relieving her from command.  There are no substantive or procedural criteria for relieving an officer from command.  The standard for removing an officer from command is a highly discretionary one, when the superior loses faith in the subordinate.  The commander clearly lost faith in the applicant and memorialized this fact in her performance report.  The applicant has failed to present relevant evidence of any error or injustice warranting relief (see Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that her intent in submitting this application is to facilitate an understanding of how this environment could have been the cause of her unethical removal of command because of discrimination or reprisal.  She is disappointed that the DPPPE evaluator herself, has never experienced discrimination or harassment or that a female officer could not entertain the possibility that she was treated differently from male commanders who got off light for the same documented regressions that she was alleged to have done.  She has provided compelling and convincing evidence to explain why the CDI and her removal from command was simply a subterfuge for executing the personal and political agenda of the military leadership involved.  She notes that officials have called upon her to submit evidence yet in reality the legal constraints in the case refused to allow testimonial evidence and the legal opinion of the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) during requests for remediation due to a gag order from general counsel (GC).  They also refused to honor the evidence she submitted independent of the SecAF’s testimony.  She should not be criticized for failing to submit evidence to support her request when the military leadership won’t honor it or bars a key civilian witness from making testimony on her behalf.  

She provided a letter from the former SecAF supporting her early retirement, which contains his opinion of her removal as well as an additional letter from him, which should be the most convincing evidence that her removal was unjust.  The IG should have at least reinvestigated the circumstances surrounding her removal to uncover the real truths.  The fact that military leadership neglected to provide this basic right of reinvestigation and fair consideration of the evidence she submitted is evidence that is was not her but the military leadership that failed.  She was removed because of discrimination and the wing leadership reprised against her for supporting lenient sentences and rehabilitation for two members that were court martialed.  The process of her removal could not be halted or reversed because AETC and the Air Force closed ranks behind the wing and the GC forced the SecAF to not intervene due to their personal relationship.  

She and the former SecAF became close and personal friends prior to her removal.  He was in constant contact with her throughout the entire time and knew first-hand that her removal was unjust.  At an Air Force Association (AFA) event in her local area he was deluged with the opinions of her unit members that she was the best commander they had ever served under and that she was being treated very unfairly.  The unfavorable testimony rendered in the CDI came from a minority of the unit members who were pressured by the IO  for a determined outcome as well as by two unit supervisors who made complaints against her and were indorsing officials for their performance reports.  The former SecAF was a prominent defense attorney who knows the law and followed her case from start to finish.  His testimony should totally absolve her and give an unconditional green light for reparation.  

Applicant states that she served her country well while she was on active duty and nothing she did warrants the injustice she received.  She did outstanding work and deserves credit for it.  The documents she provided should satisfy good cause for granting her requests.  Her ego can manage the lack of the MSMs or favorable OPR but she simply cannot and will not accept the fact that these injustices led to her nonselection for promotion and ultimately her inability to provide a financial future for her daughter who does not deserve the consequences forced upon her by the unprofessional conduct of the officers involved in this case.  While she did accept an early retirement, she could not have stayed on active duty and had a fair chance for promotion to lieutenant colonel above-the-zone due to the residual political effects of her removal.  She still prefers that the decision to promote her be made by other than an SSB and asks that the Board render a final decision on her case due to the number of people that have already formed a negative opinion of her.  

She states that she loved the Air Force and it showed.  There is no evidence that she did not perform the mission of her unit.  The only confidence that the wing lost in her ability to command was the expectation that she would support them in their unethical attempts to devastate the lives of a gay man and a man with a gambling problem and a special needs child.  The basic “whole person” concept still governs how she treats others.  There had to be a balanced approach and the military judge supported her recommendations in court for reasonable lengths of incarceration with rehabilitation as the goal.  It is unfair that a philosophical difference of opinion be allowed to stand as reason for denying what she has earned.  Rejection of her request is equivalent to supporting several double standards to include the disparity in expected behavior of general officers and those of lesser rank and the double standard as it relates to gender treatment.  

In support of her request applicant provided letters of support, a record of performance with her last supervisor, a draft MSM and narrative, estimates of her retirement income losses, and copies of documents she previously submitted.  Her complete submission, with attachments, 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  Her contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we see no evidence that there were any improprieties in the commander's decision to relieve her of command or that her commander abused his discretionary authority in doing so.  We find no evidence that would lead us to believe that she was reprised against and, it is our opinion that her contentions of reprisal are unsubstantiated.  We agree with the findings of the DoD/IG that while some of the allegations against the applicant may have been found to be unsubstantiated, the totality of the allegations against her were sufficient enough to cause a lost of faith in her ability to command.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  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 DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 01-00787 in Executive Session on 21 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Aug 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Aug 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 3 Oct 01.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 May 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Commander Directed Report of Investigation, 
                dated 2 May 00 - WITHDRAWN
    Exhibit J.  SAF/IGS Report of Investigation, 
                dated October 2000 - WITHDRAWN

                                   
                                   Panel Chair