RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-02543
		INDEX CODE 131.09
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) as if selected by the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central LTC board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Senior leadership has told him many times that chaplains in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (a conservative Lutheran Church) are often placed at large bases because of their perceived doctrine and limitations. He was not given the opportunity to be a senior chaplain, a senior Protestant chaplain or any other supervisory role because of his denomination, which disqualified him for promotion.  From 1989 to the present he has been given assignments at large bases that don’t show his talents and skills. That is religious discrimination and should not be tolerated in the Air Force. He contends the supporting letters he provides indicate that this should not have happened to him. He indicates that the former Chief of Personnel for the Chief of Chaplains confirmed this discrimination. 

His 9-page statement, with 9 attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs), which are provided at Exhibit B, he was assigned to the 52nd Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem AB, Germany from 5 Jun 96 to 30 Mar 00.  While there, he served as a chaplain from 27 Jun 96 to 4 Jun 97, and as a senior Protestant chaplain from 1 Apr 98 to 30 Mar 00.  On 17 Jul 00, he was assigned to the 314th Airlift Wing at Little Rock AFB, AR, where he is currently serving as senior Protestant chaplain in the grade of major (date of rank: 1 Aug 94).

The applicant's performance reports from 16 Aug 82 to 30 Mar 01 reflect either the highest potential rating or that he met all standards.

The applicant was considered but not selected by the CY99A and CY00A LTC selection boards, which convened on 19 Apr 99 and 28 Nov 00, respectively.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for both boards reflected a duty title of senior Protestant chaplain and had overall recommendations of "Promote."  He was also afforded SSB consideration for the CY99A board following a favorable AFBCMR decision to include an award citation in his records; however, he was not selected for promotion.

He was subsequently considered by the CY01B board, which convened on 5 Nov 01; however, selection results from that board are not yet releasable.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAH advised that, as of Jun 97, they use the same volunteer system of electronic preference worksheets that the Line of the Air Force officers use. They make assignments to locations but do not dictate the duties performed once assigned to the base. The decision to make someone a supervisory chaplain is left up to the wing chaplain at each base.  According to their records, the applicant has had several proposed assignments that have been changed based on the medical needs of his family members. There is nothing in their records to show that any of his assignments have been made based on his religious denomination. However, they support a thorough review to determine if there was any possible discrimination based on religious denomination.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO indicates that direct promotion should be considered only in the most extraordinary circumstances where SSB consideration has been deemed to be totally unworkable. The applicant’s case clearly does not fall into that category. Other than his own opinions, he has provided no substantiation to his allegations.  His case clearly does not warrant direct promotion or SSB consideration. While HQ AFPC/DPAH supports a thorough review of the applicant’s contentions, their role is not to substantiate whether discrimination occurred but rather to review the evidence provided and determine whether reports were rendered and processes were followed fairly, accurately, and in accordance with the applicable instruction. The burden of proof is on the 
applicant. He has not provided conclusive evidence showing his record contained comments and recommendations not rendered in good faith by evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends that no error was made with the OPRs or his records but rather with the assignment system which did not give him the opportunity to be placed in a supervisory role until a year before his board.  He alleges that there was some assignment manipulation; however there will be no records that indicate an assignment was made based on religious denominational discrimination. He agrees with HQ AFPC/DPAH that a thorough review should be done to determine if such discrimination occurred. He notes that HQ AFPC/DPAH advised that they use the same volunteer system of electronic preference worksheets that the Line of Air Force officers use since Jun 97. That change was made too late for him; prior to that time he was discriminated against. He asks for a direct promotion to LTC.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

The former Chanute Chief of Personnel for the Chief of Chaplains writes an additional supporting letter, indicating that denominational rules and liturgical requirements did limit the assignment of certain chaplains at small bases. These assignment limitations did not give chaplains from certain denominations an opportunity to serve in supervisory roles either as a senior protestant or a wing or senior chaplain.  He asks that the Board take this past philosophy into consideration when reviewing the applicant's case.

The retired chaplain's supporting letter 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 probable error or injustice warranting promotion to the grade of LTC. The applicant asserts that, as a member of a conservative church, he was not assigned to supervisory positions and his career progression and promotion opportunities suffered as a result. This Board is not an investigative body and the burden of proof rests with each applicant. The applicant has not convinced us that religious bias was the causal effect of his assignments or that the CY99A board undoubtedly would have selected him for LTC even if he had assumed a supervisory position at an earlier date. According to HQ AFPC/DPAH, several proposed assignments were changed based on the medical needs of the applicant's family members. The applicant became a senior Protestant chaplain more than a year before the CY99A board and his performance reports appear to be objective assessments. The documents he provides reflect that various feelings of discrimination are perceived within the Chaplain Service; however, these perceptions appear to be speculative thus far. The Air Force is entitled to utilize its members in ways that best serve its needs and the evidence provided does not substantiate that conservative chaplains in general and this applicant in particular did, in fact, suffer denominational discrimination. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude the applicant has not been a victim of either injustice or error and find no compelling basis to recommend the granting the relief sought. 

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 issue(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 23 January 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
               Vice Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAH, dated 16 Oct 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Nov 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Dec 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Retired Chaplain, dated 1 Jan 02.