RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01943
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.01
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on her for the period 23 Sep 91 through 22 Sep 92 be voided and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR, the first rendered on her on active duty, is not a fair or true assessment of her capabilities because she was not adequately prepared to perform her duties as a deputy missile combat crew commander.  She believes that although she was inadequately prepared, she graduated from Undergraduate Missile Training (UMT) primarily because there was great pressure not to fail her because she was female.  Only through an additional 120 hours of supervised and assigned study/training was she able to graduate.  

When she reported to her first duty station, she did not have a security clearance and was unable to begin localized training for the first two months.  As a result, the knowledge she had obtained at UMT deteriorated.  When she started her localized upgrade training, she was paired with a brand new missile combat crew commander who had trouble with his own upgrade training during the previous training cycle.  During their upgrade training sequence, they encountered problems, which led to less than favorable results on their Missile Procedure Trainer (MRT) rides.  She was also given MWT rides by numerous missile combat crew commanders, each with their own techniques, which caused her to become more confused and led to unsuccessful training rides.

She also experienced difficulty in obtaining her training records during her upgrade training sequence as well as during the preparation of her rebuttal to the referral OPR, which was key to her being able to document her training problems.  Squadron leadership told her that group/wing leadership was reviewing her training record and that she could not have access to it.

She believes the contested OPR was rendered on her with the goal of disqualifying her from the missile operations career field.  She should have been disqualified prior to finishing UMT.  Had she been allowed to retrain while at UMT, she would never have received a referral OPR.

In support of her appeal, she provides a copy of the referral OPR and associated correspondence.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.  While serving in her first duty assignment as a Deputy Crew Commander Minuteman ICBM, she was found deficient in job knowledge and received a referral OPR.  She was disqualified from the missile operations career field.  Applicant is now assigned to the Personnel career field.  All OPRs received since the referral report have overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to major in-the-primary zone by the CY01A Central Major Selection Board.  The CY02A Central Major Selection Board selected her for promotion above-the-promotion zone.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void the OPR.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to support her assertion that she was forced through the UMT program.  She addressed the training issue and her missing training records in her rebuttal to the referral report.  As such, the rating chain was aware of her concerns at the time and concurred with the referral report as written.  Further, in a 20 Oct 92 memorandum by the commander, he addresses the training record issue.  He states that the applicant’s records were found on or about 13 Oct 92 and she was welcome to review and copy them.  However, the applicant did neither, nor did she update her 8 Oct rebuttal letter, which was not turned in until 16 Oct 92.  The applicant also acknowledges in her 8 Oct 92 rebuttal that she did receive extensive training, but goes on to address other issues, which she believes impacted her abilities.  By the applicant’s own admission, she was provided adequate training and the OPR was written in accordance with governing directives.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends that the applicant not be considered for promotion to major by special selection board for the CY01A Central Major Selection Board.  They based their recommendation on AFPC/DPPPE’s recommendation that the applicant’s OPR not be removed from her records.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Oct 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ USAF/XOSO provided an evaluation to address applicant’s contentions regarding the conduct of her training and that she only graduated from UMT because she was female.  They recommend denial of the applicant’s request to void her referral OPR.

The applicant met minimum training requirements for UMT.  The scoring standards at the time of her graduation were 85% for Weapon System (WS) training and 90% for Emergency War Order (EWO) training.  Her averages were 86% in WS and 92% in EWO.  Many students have received additional hours of training.  Though 120 hours is high, over a 79-day course, this is not unreasonable.

All UMT students received an End-of-Course evaluation provided by a separate organization, the 3901st Strategic Missile Evaluation Squadron.  All UMT graduates had to pass this evaluation prior to reporting to their respective units.  If she had failed WS, EWO, or her final evaluation, a special faculty board would have been convened to determine whether she would be retested, reevaluated, and/or continued in the program.  The applicant’s package does not support the requirement to convene this board.  The applicant met all requirements to graduate UMT.

Lack of security clearances do detract from new students becoming mission ready.  The Operation Support Squadron (OSS) training section ensures each crewmember is provided Unit Qualification Training (UQT).  Students are given refresher WS and EWO training during UQT to ensure they are ready for missile duty.  Many individuals report to duty without security clearances.  Some clearances take up to 6 months to process.  By the applicant’s own admission, she was provided “extensive training” but was unable to meet mission ready standards.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Dec 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 02-01943 in Executive Session on 4 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 13 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 02.

    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOSO, dated 4 Dec 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Dec 02.

                                   Panel Chair