RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02286
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.01;131.00
	COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reassigned as a Medical Group Commander.

The Letter of Evaluation (LOE) rendered on him prior to the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 26 Mar 98 be voided and removed from his records.

The OPR rendered on him closing 26 Mar 98 be declared void and removed from his record.

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him for the CY97A Promotion Selection Board be substituted with a reaccomplished PRF.

He be awarded an appropriate medal for his service at Altus AFB.

He be considered for promotion to colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97A Promotion Selection Board.

He receive any other appropriate legal or equitable relief, to include backpay, to which he is entitled.

The Air Force Form 77, dated 2 Feb 93, be voided, removed from his records, and replaced with the Commissioned Officers’ Effectiveness Report rendered on him for the period 19 Sep 90 through 30 Jun 91 by the U.S. Coast Guard.

It appears from a rebuttal submitted by applicant that he is also requesting a direct promotion to colonel.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a six page statement submitted through counsel, applicant indicates that he was the victim of an adversarial relationship with the Wing Inspector General (IG) at Altus AFB, OK.  The IG repeatedly used his position to encourage a series of complaints against the applicant, which the IG would then confirm.  Applicant claims that his Numbered Air Force commander advised him that he was being assigned to a problem job in a dysfunctional hospital that had integrity, accountability, and fraternization problems.  The hospital was not accredited and one of the reasons for his assignment was to get the hospital accredited, based on his good work in getting hospitals accredited at previous hospitals.  Unfortunately, he became the victim of complaints filed against him and confirmed by the IG, which led to his being fired for taking on and fixing the very problems he had been sent to Altus to fix.

Applicant provides details of his performance and achievements at assignments prior to and after his assignment to Altus AFB to show that the accusations against him at Altus fit his pattern of demonstrated performance.  Applicant also provides a copy of the rebuttal he submitted to the Wing Commander after he was fired.  The rebuttal covers the lack of officership at Altus, rebellious medical personnel, gross failures to follow regulations and published medical procedures, cover-up of malpractice, lack of certification of medical personnel, etc.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 5 Mar 89.  The applicant’s last ten OPRs indicate overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant did not file an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to void the OPR closing 26 Mar 98 he requests in this application.  The applicant did file an appeal with the ERAB in 1999 to place the Commissioned Officers’ Effectiveness Report rendered on him for the period     19 Sep 90 through 30 Jun 91 by the U.S. Coast Guard in his records.  His appeal was denied due to the copy of the report he provided not being signed by a reviewer.  The applicant has four nonselections to the grade of colonel by the CY98A (9 Nov 98), CY99A (8 Nov 99), CY00A (6 Nov 00), and CY01A (22 Oct 01).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a decoration.

Applicant did not provide any official documentation stating he was unjustly relieved of his command at Altus AFB, OK.  It was his commander’s responsibility to decide whether or not to recommend him for a decoration.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB.  

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 26 Mar 98.  They also note that the LOE the applicant wants removed is not a matter of record.

The OPR being appealed does not mention the applicant being removed from command or contain any negative information.  Additionally, he requests to have a substituted PRF, but did not provide a substitute for the board to consider.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to all three evaluations.  He addresses AFPC/DPPPR’s statement that he did not provide any official documentation concerning being relieved of command and that it is the commander’s responsibility to recommend a decoration.  He indicates that there is no documentation concerning the reason he was relieved from command.  The fact that there is no documentation of wrongdoing substantiates the unjust nature of his being relieved without cause.  Subsequently, if he did no wrong and simultaneously held the equivalent of three full time positions, he deserves the recognition of a decoration upon his reassignment.  It is a well-known fact that a commander leaving a command position is decorated for his work, unless he is relieved for cause during his command. Not receiving a decoration has placed a significant cloud upon his subsequent assignments and has unjustly limited his assignments and career potential.

The applicant indicates that there are multiple issues in his appeal.  The first is his request to have his final report for the period 19 Sep 90 through 30 Jun 91 from the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) included in his records.  He indicates that he has forwarded copies he obtained from USPHS for inclusion in his records, but was told that only originals are accepted.  He states that he has never had the original report as it was sent directly to the Air Force.  He states that at the time of his first nonselect, there was an AF Form 77 regarding the missing report that stated “Not rated for the above period.  Report is not available for administrative reasons.”  This statement and the missing report imply that there is negative information from his time in the Coast Guard, which is not true.  Multiple commanders and AFPC career counselors that reviewed his record have stated that the missing report is the only reason they can attribute his being noncompetitive for promotion to.  The AF Form 77 statement and the missing report have caused irreparable damage to his reputation and career advancement.

Regarding the issue that he did not submit a substantiated IG complaint concerning his removal from command, he indicates that this appeal is a request to correct a wrong.  He states that when he refused a request from the Wing IG to falsify a statement, the IG made a direct threat that he would learn to fear him, and that when he saw things not going his way, remember what he told him.  He claims that the IG also asked, “When a six foot, two hundred pound black man tells you to do something, aren’t you the least intimidated?”  When he complained to the Wing Commander and an HQ AETC IG investigated, he was told that it was only a “misunderstanding.”  He contends that it was not a misunderstanding and that this type of language should never be used under any circumstances by an officer and absolutely never by an IG.

Regarding the recommendation to deny him an SSB, he contends that the AF Form 77 statement and the omission of his Commissioned Officer Effectiveness Report for the period 19 Sep 90 through  30 Jun 91 set the stage for his non-select to 0-6 even after being given a “Definitely Promote” recommendation.  

Since being relieved of command, he has had his leadership abilities recognized at each subsequent assignment.  The applicant provides a brief summary of his achievements and the increase in responsibility he has gained at each assignment.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

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 did not find the evidence he presented persuasive in regards to the allegations he makes.  Unfortunately, the IG Report he references as having confirmed his complaint against his Wing IG is no longer available.  While we note the statements he provided documenting supposed negative encounters others had with the IG, this alone does not validate his allegations.  We further note that he does not provide any supporting statements from his former chain of command.  Finally, we also agree with the recommendations and opinions contained in the evaluations prepared by the Air Force 

offices of primary responsibility.  Therefore, based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs and the lack of 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 probable 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 01-02286 in Executive Session on 24 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 21 Feb 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 May 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 May 02.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 25 Jun 02.