RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00865
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 3 May 98 through 20 Apr 99 be voided.

A statement be substituted for the OPR closing 20 Apr 99 that essentially includes the comments that his assignment was curtailed and he was reassigned due to Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) circumstances.

He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 00A (28 Nov 00) and CY01B (5 Nov 01) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR rendered on him closing out 20 Apr 99 sends a clear signal to the Board not to promote him.

The OPR closing 20 Apr 99 was influenced by factors unrelated to his duty performance.  He believes his rater and additional rater made a decision to hold him accountable for his children’s embarrassing behavior.  He provides a statement of support from a senior officer in his previous rating chain that supports and bolsters his belief.  He also provides a statement of support from a Senior NCO that worked for him to verify that his duty performance did not decline as the contested OPR indicates.

He believes that even if his OPR is voided, a statement must be inserted in his records to explain why he did not complete at least two years as a squadron commander, otherwise, the promotion board could make negative inferences.

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 major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is   3 Mar 85.  He has two nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel (the CY00A and CY01B boards).  His last ten OPRs, including the contested report, have overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”  The applicant had a previous appeal denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) because the contested OPR does not mention any family issues, he does not have any support from his rating chain, and he did not provide IG or Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) investigations substantiating his contention.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 20 Apr 99 and to place a statement in his records.  The applicant has not proven the recommendations were withheld due to his family issues or that he was the victim of unfair treatment.  There are no procedures to include a statement in applicant’s record concerning his curtailment from his assignment due to EFMP involvement.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB.  Based on AFPC/DPPPE’s recommendation and the evidence submitted by the applicant, SSB consideration is not warranted.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant faxed his response to the Air Force evaluations on 26 Jun 02.  He requests that he granted a personal appearance to articulate his case and answer questions.  He indicates that the evaluation of his case provided by AFPC/DPPPE simply reiterates that the ERAB denied his appeal based on its adherence to AFI 36-2401.

In regards to AFPC/DPPPE’s assessment that he has not proven that recommendations were withheld from his OPR due to his family issues or that he was the victim of unfair treatment, the applicant discusses the difficulty in clearly proving a case like his.  He asks the Board to place themselves in his position and asks the rhetorical question, if they experienced his circumstances, could they prove the intent of the rater and additional rater at the time.
The applicant reiterates the results of the conversation between his previous rater and his present rater and the admission by the present rater that the applicant’s OPR reflected her disappointment in the increased amount of time he spent dealing with family issues.  The applicant provides information that he believes supports his contention that his duty performance never suffered from issues involving his family.  He also points to the contrast in how his performance was described in a Promotion Recommendation Form he received just 30 days prior to the contested OPR as evidence that the incidents involving his family impacted the report.

Finally, the applicant offers what he believes would be a remedy for situations with OPRs like his.  He believes that by granting his appeal, the AFBCMR would be highlighting the duty of raters and additional raters to be consistent on an OPR rendered within a month or two of a PRF on the same individual.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the OPR contested buy the applicant may lack as strong a push for promotion as his earlier reports, we were not persuaded by the evidence presented that it was due to rater retaliation.  Therefore, 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 02-00865 in Executive Session on 19 June 2002 and on 27 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, W/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 2 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 May 02.