RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-02859
		INDEX CODE 111.01  111.03  111.05  131.01
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 May 02 be voided from his records, the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Board be rewritten to reflect the same top and bottom lines as the CY00A PRF, and he be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the CY01B and CY02B selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The recommendations for squadron command and professional military education (PME) were blatantly omitted in retaliation for his writing to the Inspector General (IG) and his Congressional representative. In his previous OPRs, the recommendations were present. If he could receive the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), the contested documents should also reflect his outstanding performance. He believes a combination of two commanders’ biased leadership, power plays, inconsistencies, politicking and bad timing contributed to his nonselection to LTC.

The applicant’s complete submission, with supporting statements from a co-worker and subordinate as well as other attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major (date of rank 1 Jun 98). During the period in question, he was the diagnostics and therapeutics flight commander at the 305th Medical Support Squadron at McGuire AFB, NJ.

He was considered but not selected for promotion to LTC by the CY00A (28 Nov 00), CY01B (5 Nov 01) and CY02B (12 Nov 02) LTC boards. All of the PRFs had overall recommendations of “Promote” and contained PME and command/assignment recommendations. An OPR profile follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

	 1 Jul 98		Meets Standards (PME comments)
	 1 Jul 99		Meets Standards (Command comments)
	30 May 00		Meets Standards (PME/command comments)*
	30 May 01		Meets Standards (PME/command comments)**
	30 May 02		Meets Standards (No PME/command comments)***

*	Top report for CY00A selection board
**	Top report for CY01B selection board
***	Contested/Top report for CY02B selection board

According to documents provided by the applicant, he submitted Congressional Inquiries on 9 and 27 Feb 02. He also submitted a complaint (AF Form 102) to the IG at McGuire on 21 Feb 02.  On 13 Mar 02, the IG advised the applicant his allegations were not within the purview of the IG complaint system.  He was advised of the OPR appeal process and informed that he should contact them if he felt he was reprised against for communicating with the IG. On 18 Apr 02, his Congressional representative was advised of the appeal process available to the applicant for contesting an OPR and/or PRF. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE contends the applicant has made numerous unsubstantiated allegations based on his perceptions. Neither the IG nor the Congressional Inquiry was able to validate his complaints under their purview. The applicant gave little explanation as to why he did not follow through with the suggestions he was given on how to address his OPR and PRF concerns. In short, he declined to take the necessary steps to validate his allegations.  In accordance with the governing directive, it is inappropriate for evaluators to consider previous reports or ratings or a recommendation for decoration.  There should be no correlation between current reporting periods and previous reporting periods.  Additionally, there is absolutely no requirement for rating chains to include PME or command comments into any OPRs or PRFs. The applicant has failed to validate his numerous convoluted and unsubstantiated allegations towards his rating chain.  He provided letters of support from others outside the current rating chain, previous OPRs and PRFs, and numerous unrelated stories of others, all of which have little or no relativity within the reporting period and the PRF and OPR in question. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts that while there is no requirement for rating chains to include PME or command comments, absence of these comments was intentionally made to exclude him from promotion. He contends that given his achievements, absence of these recommendations is highly suspect. His claims and reasons are not convoluted. Where else will his complaint go when the people involved in his complaint are his immediate bosses, the cause of the problem in the first place? He was short-changed by his two commanders and there was no other grievance that is effective except outside his chain of command. He provides a copy of his [CY02B] PRF to contrast with the contested documents. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be afforded SSB consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by either the CY01B or CY02B selection boards. The applicant’s contentions are duty noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated contentions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The applicant appears to be essentially contending that his rater and additional rater were ethnically biased against him and this led to a weaker write-up on the PRF prepared for the CY01B selection board than on the PRF prepared for the CY00A board, his in-the-promotion-zone board to lieutenant colonel. Further, he believes this alleged bias against him caused the rater and additional rater to omit PME and command recommendations on the contested OPR, which was the top report at the time he was considered and not selected for promotion by the CY02B selection board, his first above-the-promotion-zone board. We note the contested PRF contained both PME and assignment recommendations, and we find no support from either the senior rater or the Management Level Review board president to change the wording on this PRF.  Regarding the OPR issue, we note the performance feedback worksheet, dated 10 Nov 01 and provided by the applicant, appears to contain several areas that his rater believed required improvement, to include various comments regarding the applicant’s leadership skills. In the Board’s opinion, these comments could have served as a basis for the rater and additional rater not to recommend the applicant for command or PME. However, as indicated by the Air Force, these comments are not required on an OPR. We also note the applicant never pursued his allegations of bias through the Military Equal Opportunity office, nor did he appeal his OPR, as recommended by the Inspector General’s office.  The statements submitted in support of the applicant were considered; however, these individuals’ statements do not establish that the rater and additional rater were biased against him. Therefore, we are not persuaded the applicant has established that he was the victim of either an error or injustice. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of persuasive to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 20 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02859 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Sep 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 4 Oct 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Oct 02, w/atchs.