RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00601
		INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears the applicant is requesting revised Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the CY01A (P0401A) and CY02B (P0402B) Central Major Selection Boards.  She be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01A and CY02B Central Major Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was racially discriminated against for approximately two years by the squadron commander/chief nurse at Shaw AFB.  The squadron commander took it upon himself to write all PRFs in order to control the promotion selection process of individuals who were not in his direct line of supervision.  Specifically, her CY01A PRF contained weak and meaningless statements that neither reflected, nor fully recognized her accomplishments.  Her CY02B PRF was written by the same squadron commander who wrote her CY02A PRF and actually used the identical bullet statements that were identified as weak and meaningless on her CY01A PRF.

In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement and a copy of her Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401 appeal, with attachments, and a statement from a former coworker.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 17 February 1988.  She is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 24 February 1992.

Applicant's OPR profile for the last ten reporting periods follows:

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		    31 May 95	Meets Standards (MS)
		    31 May 96	     MS
		    31 May 97	     MS
		    31 May 98	     MS
		#   31 May 99	     MS
		    31 May 00	     MS
		##  19 Mar 01	     MS
		### 20 Nov 01	     MS
		####22 Jun 02	     MS
		     3 Feb 03	     MS

# Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to major by the CY00A (P0400A) Central Major Selection Board, which convened on 24 January 2000.

## Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to major by the CY01A (P0401A) Central Major Selection Board, which convened on 18 June 2001.  The applicant received a “Promote” recommendation on her P0401A PRF.

### Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to major by the CY02A (P0402A) Central Major Selection Board, which convened on 19 February 2002.  The applicant received a “Promote” recommendation on her P0402A PRF.

#### Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to major by the CY02B (P0402B) Central Major Selection Board, which convened on 3 October 2002.  The applicant received a “Promote” recommendation on her P0402B PRF.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, was considered and returned without action by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) in February 2003.  The applicant was notified that her request for reconsideration for promotion did not fall under the purview of the ERAB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 states that the applicant’s records have been reviewed by HQ AFPC/DPAMN (Medical Service Officer Management Division), who concurs with the comments provided by the previous Chief, Nurse Utilization and Education Branch.  The comments regarding “poorly written with weak bullet statements” apply only to the PRF for the P0401A major selection board.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that the applicant has not provided any documentation to support her allegations of racial discrimination by the squadron chief/chief nurse or that he wrote all PRFs in order to control the selection process of individual promotions.  With regard to bullet statements on her PRF, the senior rater bears the responsibility of selecting what to include in the PRF, and what to leave out; which portions of the officer’s career to concentrate on, and which portions to have supported by the record.  The applicant has not provided new PRFs, with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level review president as required.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPO reviewed the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPPE and HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 advisories and have nothing further to add.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the chief nurse and the numbered medical group commander have since been reassigned (PCS).  While at Shaw AFB and prior to the Central Selection Board (CSB), efforts were made to resolve the issue concerning the 2001 PRF written by the chief nurse.  She arranged a meeting with the group commander and was told that her next PRF would be much stronger and reflect current accomplishments.  She realizes that the senior rater makes the decision on what to include in the PRF and what portions of her career to focus on.  However, she expected a different version of her 2002 PRF than the same identical version prepared on the 2001 PRF.  She could not dispute the 2002 PRF because she and her chain of command had been reassigned by the time she received the 2002 PRF.  She feels that the chief nurse failed to place her in an equitable position that would allow her a fair opportunity for promotion by the wording and choice of bullet statements for two consecutive years.  As far as the racial discrimination complaint is concerned, this is very difficult to prove particularly because she does not have any substantial proof to support it.

In support of her request, applicant submits copies of her PRFs for promotion consideration below-the-zone, in-the-zone and above-the-zone.  Applicant’s former flight commander, who is the additional rater on her OPRs rendered during the period 1 June 1999 through 22 June 2002, has submitted a statement of support.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, and the former flight commander’s letter are 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.  After a thorough review of the documentation pertaining to this appeal, we are unpersuaded that the contested PRFs should be revised and the applicant given SSB consideration.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted, as was the former flight commander’s supporting statement.  However, we did not find any support from the appropriate senior rater or the Management Level Review (MLR) president.  The applicant did not submit, nor did we find, evidence to support her allegation that the senior rater did not follow the intent of the Air Force instruction with regard to her PRFs.  We are therefore not persuaded by the available evidence that the contested PRFs are inaccurate as written or technically flawed.  In addition, the applicant has not provided evidence to substantiate racial discrimination.  Consequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (HQ AFPC/DPPPE) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Session on 14 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00601.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 25 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 13 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from Applicant, dated 18 June 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair