DEFENDANT.

COMPLAINT

	Plaintiff, by and through his attorney, Barry P. Steinberg, Esq., 
brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly 
situated, and alleges the following upon personal knowledge as to 
himself, and on information and belief as to all other matters, based 
on investigation conducted by counsel.  That investigation included 
the thorough review and analysis of documents released by the defendant.  
Plaintiff avers as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

	1.	This is a class action on behalf of all officers of the 
United States Air Force who were considered and selected for 
involuntary separation from the United States Air Force by the Fiscal 
Year 1993 Reduction-In-Force Board (“FY93RIF Board”).  As more fully 
set forth below, the FY93RIF Board was conducted in violation of each 
officer’s Constitutional right to equal opportunity for retention on 
active duty.

THE PARTIES

	2.	Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States. Plaintiff 
was a commissioned officer considered by and selected for involuntary 
separation from the United States Air Force by the FY93RIF Board.

	3.	The Defendant United States is responsible for the 
activities of the United States Air Force.

JURISDICTION

	4.	Jurisdiction in this case is conferred by Section 1491, 
Title 28, United States Code, and other applicable federal statutes 
including Section 642, Title 10, United States Code; Chapter 71, 
Title 10, United States Code; Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code; Section 277, Title 10, United States Code and Section 8301(a), 
Title 5, United States Code.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

	5.	Plaintiff brings this class action under Rule 23 RCFC, 
on behalf of the class of persons (or their successors in interest) 
consisting of all commissioned officers in the United States Air 
Force who were considered by and selected for involuntary 
separation from the United States Air Force by the FY93RIF 
Board ("the Class").

	6.	The members of the class constitute a large but 
manageable class. There are 1,595 members of the class. Defendant 
can readily identify all members of the class from its records. 
There are no apparent factual distinctions that would interfere 
with resolution of the issues raised by this complaint.

	7.	There is a question of law common to the whole class. 
The common question of law in this case is whether the FY93RIF Board 
was conducted in violation of the Constitutionally protected Equal 
Protection rights of plaintiff and the class members. This core legal 
question raises the following issues common to all class members:

	a)	Did the Defendant have a compelling governmental interest 
justifying the adoption of procedures authorizing the consideration of 
race or ethnic by the FY93RIF Board?

	b)	Did the Defendant narrowly tailor its guidance to the 
FY93RIF Board authorizing the consideration of race or ethnic 
characteristics?

	c)	Does the Defendant's introduction of the consideration 
of gender by the FY93RIF Board satisfy the applicable intermediate 
scrutiny standard?

	8.	A common legal issue overrides separate factual issues 
affecting individual members.

	9.	Claims of the party plaintiff are typical of claims of 
the class.  The rights of citizens under our Constitution are uniform 
and individual, the Constitutional claims of the plaintiff are 
identical to those of all class members.

10.	The Defendant acted on grounds generally applicable to the 
whole class.

	11.	The claims of many claimants must be so small that it 
is doubtful they would be otherwise pursued. The statute of 
limitations is about to expire in regard to the conduct of the 
FY93RIF Board. There is no better alternative to the resolution 
of the interests of class members than the efficiency of a class 
action.

	12.	The plaintiff will adequately and fairly protect the 
interests of the class without conflicts of interest. Plaintiff 
has retained competent counsel experienced in military personnel 
litigation to ensure such protection, and intends to prosecute 
this action vigorously.

13.	The interests of justice are served by certifying this 
matter as a class action.

THE FY93RIF BOARD PROCESS

	14.	The statutory authority for the RIF was contained in 
Sections 266 and 681a, Title 10, United States Code.  This 
authority is now set forth in Sections 12313 and 12643, Title 10, 
United States Code.

	15.	The Secretary of the Air Force issued a written 
Memorandum of Instruction to the FY93RIF Board which included 
the following guidance:
Your evaluation of minority and women officers must clearly 
indicate you have afforded them fair and equitable consideration. 
Equal opportunity for all officers is an essential element of our 
selection system, and we are firmly committed to that end. You 
should be aware that it is possible that past personal and 
institutional discrimination may have disadvantaged minority 
and female officers. Take these factors into consideration in 
ensuring these officers receive truly fair and equitable treatment. 
The board shall prepare for review by the Secretary and Chief of 
Staff, an assessment of minority and female officer selections as 
compared to the selection rate for all officers considered by the 
board.

	16.	The Secretary of the Air Force established year group 
quotas, i.e., the number of officers required to be selected for 
involuntary separation, for the FY93RIF Board. The FY93RIF Board 
met between July 20 and July 30, 1992 and identified 1595 officers 
for involuntary separation. The board expressly acknowledged that 
the guidance concerning selection rates for minority and female 
officers was kept in mind in the course of reviewing records.

COUNT ONE

	17.	The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 
are incorporated herein by reference.

	18.	The Department of the Air Force denied plaintiff and all 
members of the class their Constitutional right to equal opportunity 
for retention on active duty through the equal opportunity 
instruction requiring the FY93RIF Board to give special retention 
consideration to minorities including a requirement to render a 
written numerical report to the Secretary and Chief of Staff on 
their performance of this task.

	19.	The equal opportunity instruction was not based upon 
any reported institutional discrimination within the Department 
of the Air Force or the Department of Defense. The instruction 
was apparently issued because of reports of occasional statistical 
variations in the promotion selection rates for certain minority 
groups when compared to the promotion selection rates for all 
officers. This action was taken although the Air Force had 
determined that its selection boards selected officers with 
similar characteristics at similar rates regardless of race.

	20.	This career ending process denied plaintiff and all 
the class members their rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution.

COUNT TWO

	21.	The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 20 
are incorporated herein by reference.

	22.	The Department of the Air Force denied plaintiff and 
all members of the class their Constitutional right to equal 
opportunity for retention on active duty through the equal 
opportunity instruction requiring the FY93RIF Board to give 
special retention consideration to women including a requirement 
to render a written numerical report to the Secretary and Chief 
of Staff on their performance of this task.

	23.	The equal opportunity instruction was not based upon 
any reported institutional discrimination within the Department 
of the Air Force or the Department of Defense. The instruction 
was apparently issued because of reports of occasional statistical 
variations in the promotion selection rates for women when compared 
to the promotion selection rates for all officers.  This action was 
taken although the Air Force had determined that its selection boards 
selected officers with similar characteristics at similar rates 
regardless of group characteristics.

	24.	This career ending process denied plaintiff and all 
the class members their rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution.

	WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the 
Class, prays for judgment as follows:

	1.	Declaring this action to be a class action pursuant to 
Rule 23 RCFC on behalf of the Class defined herein.

	2.	Declaring the FY93RIF Board unjust and in violation of law, 
the selection of plaintiff and all the members of the class for 
involuntary separation by that board invalid, and the resulting 
involuntary separations illegal and of no legal consequence.

	3.	Awarding plaintiff and all members of the class active duty 
pay in the grade they were serving at the time of their involuntary 
separation through the date of judgment by this Court, and further order 
their return to active duty in the grade they were serving at the time 
of their involuntary separation with all rights, benefits and privileges 
as if their service had not been interrupted.

	4.	Directing the Secretary of the Air Force to correct any 
and all records and/or system(s) of records and/or information of the 
Department of the Air Force including but not limited to, the official 
military records of the plaintiff and all class members, to show: 
correction of said records and/or system(s) of records and/or information 
to reflect nonselection by the FY93RIF Board and continued active duty as 
set forth above.

	5.	Awarding plaintiff and the class attorney fees and other 
expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 2412, 
Title 28, United States Code.

	6.	Ordering the Secretary of the Air Force to correct any and 
all official military records in order to accord plaintiff and all 
members of the class full and complete relief including, but not 
limited to, the payment of any pay and allowances due to plaintiff and 
the members of the class as a result of the correction of their military 
records.

	7.	Granting plaintiff and the members of the class such other 
and further relief as may be deemed just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted

December 28, 1998


OF COUNSEL:			BARRY P. STEINBERG
WILLIAM A. AILEO		1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
RR 1, Box 22C			Suite 1000
Springville, PA 18844		Washington, DC 20036-4374
(570) 278-9703			(202) 828-2400
				Attorney for Plaintiff