RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2022-00853

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXX
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: XXXX

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her service record be corrected to reflect:

a.	On XXXXXXX, she graduated from Officer Training School (OTS) and was commissioned as a second lieutenant (O-1) with class XXXX.
b.	She received all subsequent promotions and credited the appropriate time in grade (TIG) for each rank based upon the aforementioned scheduled commissioning/graduation date.
c.	She receives retroactive difference in pay for each rank and TIG, as well as all other benefits and entitlements based upon the aforementioned scheduled commissioning/graduation date.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She was qualified for commissioning at OTS; however, adverse actions were taken against her and not the white males in her cohort.  Her experience in OTS included judgements in grading and behaviors that were different than many of her peers and are inconsistent with the testaments of others present at training.  Formal written statements from cadets attest to her ability and character as a leader, the honors and recognition the flight received from other evaluators while she was class leader indicates her evaluation does not properly reflect her competencies.  There were three other white cadet class leaders whose tenures would worsen flight morale and lead to poor flight evaluations and these leaders were not chastised and demeaned as she was.  They were rewarded with passing Graded Leadership Position (GLP) evaluations and treated more favorably than she was by their instructor, who was also a white male.  The impact of receiving the failing GLP at the start of officer training resulted in the remainder of training being an uphill battle that was not included in the approved curriculum.

Not each cadet would be class leader or squadron commander, yet she had the increased challenge of moving from class leader to squadron commander.  Other cadets had the opportunity to be evaluated on single activity GLPs that may have lasted for one hour or less, not for one week like she had.  There was no tiered approach accompanied with proper help so learning could take place.  In fact, she was removed from the training environment on multiple occasions, which restricted her learning due to insignificant justifications (i.e., not eating enough, hairstyle, and physical training).  She was failed at one GLP (flight leader), assigned a more difficult GLP (squadron leader) where she was failed and publicly demeaned.  She did not have a similar opportunity to show her leadership abilities through all available avenues as did many cadets in her cohort.
	
She received discriminatory treatment in her evaluations, and was subjected to microaggressions, which resulted in her disenrollment from OTS.  The insults, derogatory remarks, and negative messages - microaggressions, were repeatedly made in front of the flight and in one-on-one meetings with the flight commander.  An example of a microaggression that occurred was the questioning about her education level.  She has a master’s degree and three bachelor’s degrees and was pursuing a PhD, yet she was questioned whether there was a mistake on the form she had completed.  She was also told that she could not act like she did in the XXXXXX.  Her association with her flight commander was new and only during OTS.  He did not know her when she was in the XXXXXXX.

She was verbally warned (from a woman of color) that she would have a difficult time solely based on her demographics of being a woman of color and comments the squadron commander said to other female cadets who had also been in the position.  As cadet squadron commander, she endured derogatory verbal remarks intermingled with seemingly arbitrary remarks during in-person meetings with the evaluating instructor cadre attacking her physical traits and characteristics.  During a meeting in the squadron commander’s office when she was the cadet squadron commander, he ridiculed and bullied her about her physical appearance.  The statements were not specific to her uniform wear or hygiene or any other requirements in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance.  The conversation was demeaning, unprofessional, and inappropriate for a military mentor role.

In support of her request, she provides a statement to the Board, which includes a myriad of examples and various incidents that occurred, which depict how she was treated unfairly due to her race and gender.  She was a victim of prejudice during her time at OTS.  Her experience can be verified because, unfortunately, she is one of many others who have undergone such a poor experience in the Air Force.  Statistics from sources that are internal and external to the Air Force show bias against members of her protected classes.  Many publicly available, reputable sources show the Air Force has a history of unfavorable treatment concerning women of color that go beyond her situation.  The Inspector General Department of the Air Force, Report of Inquiry (S8918P), dated Dec 20, shows there are numerous examples of disparity.  There are also additional sources that show for many years, the Air Force has shown patterns of discrimination against promoting women of color, particularly officers. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is currently serving Air National Guard technical sergeant (E-6).

On XXXXXX, according to DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated XXXXXXX the applicant was disenrolled from Officer Training School, Class XXXX, for Military Training Deficiency.  Section IV, Evaluation to be Considered in the Future for Determining Acceptability for Other Officer Training, Box 5, Not Recommended, is selected.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

The Inspector General Department of the Air Force, Report of Inquiry (ROI), Independent Racial Disparity Review, Dec 20.  The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF), Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), and Chief of Space Operations (CSO) directed the Department of the Air Force Inspector General (DAF IG) to assess racial disparity in military discipline processes and personnel development and career opportunity as they pertain to black Airmen and Space Professionals.  For purposes of this review, “racial disparity” refers to a noted data difference between races.  Specifically, this Review defines racial disparity as existing when the proportion of a racial/ethnic group within a subset of the population is different from the proportion of such groups in the general population.  While the presence of a disparity alone is not evidence of racism, discrimination, or disparate treatment, it presents a concern that requires more in-depth analysis. 

The Independent Review confirmed racial disparity exists for Black service members in law enforcement apprehensions, criminal investigations, military justice, administrative separations, placement into occupational career fields, certain promotion rates, professional military educational development and leadership opportunities.  

The first Independent Racial Disparity Review, released in Dec 20, identified and validated 16 specific disparities for Black/African American Airmen and Guardians.  Since that time, stakeholders have been conducting root-cause analysis and have begun implementing corrective measures.  Among the report’s recommendations is the need for unconscious bias mitigation training for panels, commanders, selection boards, and senior raters.  Analysis shows even when all potential root-causes of the disparities are identified and mitigated, there are some outcomes that do not trace directly to an identifiable barrier.  In these instances, unintentional and unconscious bias is a possible factor in some outcomes.  Therefore evidence-based training is recommended to ensure awareness and help mitigate potential contributing factors.

The second IG disparity review ROI released in Sep 21, focused on gender and ethnicity, to include Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders.  The second review also referenced and compared data from the prior report on racial disparity involving Black/African American Airmen and Guardians.  The second review is an extension of the DAF’s initial racial disparity review and addressed disparities in discipline, investigation and personnel opportunities for these groups.  Among the groups examined, the second IG disparity review revealed racial, ethnic, and gender disparities, particularly in accessions, retention, opportunities, and to a relatively lesser extent, disciplinary actions.  Additionally, based upon survey feedback and group discussions, racially and ethnically diverse and female service members indicated they face barriers and challenges others may not experience.

While the presence of a disparity alone is not evidence of racism, sexism, discrimination or disparate treatment, it presents a concern that requires more in-depth analysis and corrective action.  The data identified in this review shows race, ethnicity, and gender are correlating factors, however, they do not indicate causality, and the review does not address why the disparities exist.  This report’s primary focus was on identifying areas of disparity for further analysis.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

OTS/CC recommends denying the applicant’s request to correct her OTS Summary disenrollment and allow her to graduate, commission and receive retroactive subsequent promotions.  The applicant failed to pass two out of the three leadership evaluations.  Officer trainees are given three GLP evaluation opportunities and must successfully meet grading requirements in two of three to graduate from OTS.  The applicant passed her first GLP evaluation but failed her second and third GLP evaluations.  She failed her third evaluation by not meeting requirements in four of the six performance areas and was entered into the Commander’s Review (CR) to determine her status.  Based on the applicant’s performance, attitude, potential, and record, the OTS Commandant determined that she should be disenrolled from OTS and not allowed to graduate or be commissioned into the Air Force.

It should be noted that the applicant’s overall performance at OTS, not just individual graded measurements, was meticulously reviewed and considered by her instructor, her Student Squadron Commander, her Detachment Commander, the Holm Center Judge Advocate (HC/JA), and lastly, by the OTS Commandant, in accordance with Officer Training School Instruction (OTSI) 36-1, before making the determination that she be disenrolled from the course.  All officers who conducted the disenrollment process served in honorable standing, and the multiple levels of review built into the disenrollment process are designed in part to ensure enforcement of the U.S. Air Force’s zero tolerance policy against discrimination.

On XXXXXX, the applicant received a failing grade on her Initial Leadership Opportunity (ILO).  According to the Total Force Officer Training (TFOT) Syllabus, ILO’s “consist of various exercises that evaluate a cadet’s performance in a leadership setting.  They are utilized to provide feedback to cadets on their ability to lead in a particular setting and serve as an opportunity to practice leadership skills while receiving feedback on those skills.”  This point is critical, ILOs do not count for or against a cadet’s graduation requirements.  They provide an opportunity for cadets to learn and grow without fear of failure and any attendant impacts.  The applicant’s ILO took the form of Cadet Flight Leader, which included coordinating the schedule, movements, and accountability of her classmates.  This practice opportunity was a graded position but was not counted as part of her graduation requirements.  This practice occurred during the first week of training and was closely monitored by her Flight Commander.  She received marginal grading in three out of six performance areas.  The marginal marks were in Job Knowledge, Leadership, and Professionalism.  Her Flight Commander provided her with feedback and counseling regarding her failing grade.

On XXXXXX, the applicant conducted her first GLP, which was a thirty-minute Warrior Expeditionary Leadership Problem Solving (WELPS) round.  She achieved an overall passing grade of 86 percent.  The short duration of this leadership evaluation is contradictory to her claim that she was not afforded an opportunity to be assessed during shorter leadership evaluations.  Most trainees are assessed across a variety of leadership evaluations with some lasting 15 – 30 minutes, and others occurring over the span of weeks.  The aim of the OTS staff is to train, develop, and evaluate OTS trainees in leadership situations that vary in scope, tempo, and environment.

On XXXXXX, the applicant was given her final grade for her second GLP evaluation.  This evaluation took place during week 4 and she was evaluated by the Student Squadron Commander.  The GLP was that of Cadet Squadron Commander.  She received marginal scores in Leadership and Organization, and a failing score in Communication.  A review of her GLP Form 2, Graded Leadership Position Evaluation Form, shows that she was downgraded in Leadership due to an inability to receive and apply feedback and trust.  It is important to note that her peers also identified and critiqued her lack of communication and leadership skills in their peer reviews for that week.  

The applicant’s claim that trainees are usually not assigned more responsibility after failing a leadership evaluation is inaccurate.  OTS strives to train, develop, evaluate across varying scopes, tempos, and environments.  It is also important for trainees to be evaluated by other instructors.

The applicant’s classmates provided their Flight Commander with reports on her leadership, as they were required do to for all classmates who were ranked in the top or bottom three of the flight.  In the review of her classmate’s reports, there are multiple references to her inability to effectively communicate, organize, influence, connect, and lead.  Her rankings by her classmates and their corresponding comments decline precipitously after Week 1 of the training.  It is important to recognize that her classmates spent the most time around her and consistently ranked her leadership in the bottom of the flight, culminating in a 16 out of 16 overall ranking.  Her peer’s appraisal of her leadership is consistent with and serves to provide support for OTS’ decision to disenroll her from training.

On XXXXXXXX, the applicant was given her third and final opportunity to successfully complete her GLP evaluation as the Mission Planning Cell (MPC) lead for her class’s expeditionary exercise.  She received marginal marks in Job Knowledge, Judgement and Decisions, and Communications and received an overall grade of 70 percent.

A review of the applicant’s GLP Forms 2 show that weakness in communications was prevalent throughout her performance.  Her Job Knowledge was Marginal, which, can be seen in her inability to understand and follow rules, schedules, and requirements as exemplified by a lights-out violation, absence from her change of command ceremony, and AETC Forms 341, Excellence/Discrepancy Report.

In accordance with the TFOT Syllabus, the Student Squadron Commander, or above, can elect to give a trainee an additional GLP evaluation.  At this point, the applicant had already received one practice leadership opportunity and three formal leadership opportunities to demonstrate satisfactory leadership and the Student Squadron Commander, the Director of Operations, the Detachment Commander and the OTS Commandant all elected not to provide her a fourth GLP evaluation.

The applicant’s allegations concerning her physical fitness assessment cannot be substantiated.  There are no records of an appeal, retest, or adjustment to her score.  Her records show that she scored a 97.8 percent on her Physical Fitness Baseline Assessment.  OTS procedures regarding physical fitness assessment scoring do not allow for changes to be made after the tests.  Tests are administered, monitored, and recorded by trained staff and Physical Training Instructors during scheduled testing windows.  If a trainee fails a test, they are placed on Special Monitoring Status and given a Progress Check in the form of another fitness assessment.  Staff do not casually host tests in their office or deviate from scheduled testing sessions.

The applicant’s allegations that she was harassed by a Military Training Instructor (MTI) regarding her appearance also cannot be substantiated.  OTS’ MTIs are highly trained professionals that receive intensive evaluations in the performance of their duties and conduct themselves with the upmost professionalism and are focused on producing the highest quality officers.  Her records indicate a lack of ability to receive and apply feedback.  Her recounting of the incident with the MTI appears to be evidence of a missed opportunity to receive and apply feedback.

The applicant claims that she was harassed regarding her diet.  Her Flight Commander became concerned with her diet, as it was observed to be inadequate to support the mental and physical demands of the course.  Her Flight Commander also took the opportunity to clarify that she was receiving food at the dining facility at a flat rate and would not be reimbursed for any food not charged to her.

Based upon documentation provided by the applicant and the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The leadership evaluations that she received at OTS clearly document her failure to effectively lead.  Due to disenrollment for failing to meet graduation criteria, the applicant was not commissioned as a second lieutenant and her records should remain consistent with that fact.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 11 May 22 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 10 Jun 22.  In her response, the applicant states the TFOT syllabus may prescribe that fair and equitable practices are to be followed; however, this was not her experience.  She was in a training environment that included intentional stress and she did make mistakes.  However, the mistakes she made combined with the skewed evaluations, counseling’s, and constantly being questioned about her XXXXX experience, education and degrees, resulted in her disenrollment from TFOT.  She was the victim of discrimination because of her race and gender.  This can be proven as the paperwork in her cadet file will likely differ from other cadets in her cohort who were of a different gender and color.  As such, she requests the Board approve her request on the entirety of the supporting documents, narratives, and impartial accounts she has submitted.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends she was treated unfairly and differently than her peers due to her gender and race.  Allegations of racial disparity warrant careful deliberation; therefore, the Board considered the entire case file, the applicant’s contentions of gender and racial discrimination, and the Department of the Air Force Independent Racial Disparity Review.  However, the applicant has not established that her race or gender were the reason for her disenrollment.  In this regard, the evaluations clearly document her failure to effectively lead and the statements she provides from her fellow cadets do not appear to support her claims of discrimination or unfair treatment because of her race and/or gender.  Therefore, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of OTS/CC and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Furthermore, the applicant’s disenrollment from OTS appears to be well documented and in line with the applicable rules and regulations.  Since the Board does not recommend, she be commissioned as an O-1; her subsequent requests are not favorably considered. Accordingly, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record.  

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2022-00853 in Executive Session on 16 Jun 22 and 7 Sep 22:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Mar 22.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, OTS/CC, w/atchs, dated 9 May 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 11 May 22.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s Response, dated 10 Jun 22.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.