RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01568

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to include his Bachelor's Degree and the most recent Overseas Duty History.

2.	The duty title on the Officer’s Performance Report (OPR) closing out 8 July 1999 be corrected to reflect Chief, Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Treatment Program.

3.	The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) awarded for the period 3 November 1997 to 20 August 1999 be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

4.	He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) had discrepancies as it met the CY02B board through no fault of his own.  He was not given credit for his most recent overseas long tour.  He notified his MPF at Charleston AFB about the discrepancy in his overseas duty history block of the OSB, and they gave him written confirmation of the updated record of his overseas long tour in England.  Unfortunately, somehow that update never occurred and his record met the board without the update that was confirmed by AFPC.  He was being proactive earlier in the summer (26 Jun 02), he had to get his MPF at Mildenhall, UK, to update his overseas duty history because they had somehow dropped his previous long tour to Alaska.  Both are now currently reflected.  In addition, his Bachelor’s Degree was not reflected in the academic education block of the OSB.  When he inquired into this, he was informed by Officer Promotions that only graduate degrees appear in this block and that is why it is subtitled SPECIALTY SCHOOL.  They also said that he had to have a bachelor’s degree to be an officer in the first place so that explanation made sense to him.  He found out in his post promotion board counseling session that this was incorrect and that the other promotion candidates would have had all degrees held on their OSB.  

Secondly, in light of being passed over for lieutenant colonel, he now feels that he received prejudicial treatment by his flight commander at Kessler Medical Center, which hurt his career.  We had a change of command four months prior to his PCS to England and the new flight commander exhibited inappropriate attitudes and language toward patients and staff.  He displayed unequal treatment of female staff members and toward him.  He would occasionally use a derogatory or sarcastic pronunciation of his first name, which is Arabic.  Although most of the staff found his behavior unprofessional, he did not believe anyone filed a complaint.  Since it was verbal, he thinks the prevailing attitude was that a complaint would be considered frivolous.  He held that attitude himself.  However, when he got ready to PCS, he experienced some concrete evidence of his discrimination.  He believes that his actions against him amounted to tampering with his career despite the fact that the IG said that they could do nothing to correct the problems.

Specifically, his flight commander, Col L___, put his former duty title (Clinical Social Worker) on his last OPR at Kessler, rather than the job title he held at the time (Chief, Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Program), as reflected on his Air Force Commendation (AFCM).  After granting a two-month time on station (TOS) waiver at the request of his gaining command, he put him in as a no-submit for any decoration for his tour at Kessler.  He had to wait seven months to be informed by his losing MPF of his award status (he had been inquiring about his award every couple of months since his permanent change of station).  His local IG referred him to the IG at Kessler who informed him that complaints about OPR’s or Awards and Decorations did not meet their criteria.  When his next OPR came due in July 2000, his rater (flight commander) urged him to write to his former group commander to correct the slight.  

It is plain to see by his letter of inquiry to his former group commander, that he went out of his way to be professional, not to claim discrimination on the part of his flight commander so long after the fact.  In fact he never mentioned him by name, believing that the facts would speak for themselves and that he would get the proper recognition for his tour of duty at Kessler.  He had no doubts that Col L__’s predecessor, Col C__, whom he worked for all but the last four months of his tour, would have strongly supported and justified the award of an MSM based on field grade status, his duty performance (particularly the 1.2 million dollars that he saved the command in training costs annually) which was reflected in both his OPR and AFCM, and his DP to major.  Unfortunately, a year had passed and he was not known or remembered by those who now had to make a decision on his award.  His former flight commander, Col C__, and former squadron commander, Col Mc__, had retired.  In response to his letter of inquiry, the new squadron commander was asked to make a recommendation for decoration on a major he never met, yet one he knew left without a recommendation for any award by his flight commander.  The inquiry generated an AFCM rather than an MSM.  To this day he believes that his career was tampered with, but since none of us are “entitled” to any award of level of award, he was without further recourse.   

For the purposes of this appeal, what he is saying is that the duty title he held at the time of his OPR was written was the one he was entitled to and would have reflected greater diversity of career experience to the board.  And if not for Col L__’s “no-submit” for any decoration, he would have had four MSM’s in a row, rather than two followed by an AFCM (as his first award as a field grade officer).  The two MSM’s that he earned as a company grade officer do not reflect any leniency on the part of the U.S. Army when it comes to awards and decorations, but rather consistent meritorious service – the first due to the fact that he earned the Commanding General’s Award of Merit (leadership award) with the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson initiation/implementation/management of special programs while assigned to Fort Lewis. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits, copies of emails, OSB’s, OPR, citation for AFCM, letter of inquiry to 81MDG/CC, and promotion recommendation (PRF). 

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of Major with a date of rank of 1 January 1999.

Applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY02B selection board.

Applicant has received four OPR's since he was promoted to the grade of major, all of which reflects "Meets Standards."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommend denial and stated the OSB did not reflect the applicant’s overseas duty tour assignment to RAF Croughton UK, from 7 September 1999 to 1 September 2002, in the “Overseas duty History” block.  The applicant provides an email from HQ AFPC/DPAPP1 confirming the update in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) on 4 November 2002.  Although the information was not reflected in the “Overseas Duty History” block, the “
Assignment History” block clearly reflected a duty entry for Croughton, effective 7 September 1999, up until his new assignment to Charleston, effective 10 September 2002.  In addition, the board members reviewed the applicant’s top three Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing out 8 July 2000,      8 July 2001, and 20 February 2002, which were all records of his performance while assigned to the 422nd Air Base Squadron (USAFE), RAF Croughton, England.  Therefore, the central board did have before it material information regarding this tour. 

The applicant states that he was told by Officer Promotions that only graduate degrees appear in the “Academic Education Block”.  The applicant speaks to the fact that he was provided misinformation but fails to provide evidence to authenticate this claim. 

The applicant’s final contention, which he also believes is the result of prejudicial treatment by his flight commander, is that he should have received an Meritorious Service Medal instead of an Air Force Commendation Medal as an end-of-tour decoration.  IAW  AFI 36-2803, The Air Force’s Award and Decoration Program, paragraph 2.2.6., no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an operational TDY or departure for an assignment nor does the applicant provide any evidence to substantiate this claim.  

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial and states the applicant contends his duty title is incorrect on the OPR, however, MilPds currently reflects the same duty title that is listed on the report.  Also, the report itself actually substantiates the “Clinical Social Worker” duty title.  For example, Section III, 2., line one, states, “Provides clinical social work services…”, Section VI on the last one, states, “…for clinical social workers,” and the rater in his comments in Section VI on the last line states the applicant is ready for a “Mental Health Clinic Chief” role.  The entire report reflects that the Clinical Social Worker was the correct duty title and the rating chain is not heard from to indicate otherwise.  While the AFCM citation reflects both duty titles, there is nothing to indicate Clinical Social Worker was not in fact the duty title when the OPR closed-out.  Again, the report itself strongly indicates that was the correct duty title.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a mater of record.  There are no errors with the July 1999 report.  Allowing the applicant to change the duty title simply because he disagrees with the one his rater 

used would be unjust since he, did not have any supporting documentation from his rating chain or any other evidence to backup his contentions

AFPC/DPPPE complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Applicant reviewed Air Force evaluations and stated that he is asking for an SSB because the treatment he received from Col L__.  He now believes this could have made the difference in his non-selection for Lt Col.  Rather than the promotion board seeing a consistent record of meritorious service – two MSM’s as a company grade officer, a commanding general’s leadership award (and MSM as well as a Chief of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Program (ADAPT) duty title at Keesler – which he believes he missed due to career tampering on the part of one individual), followed by another MSM and Chief of Life Skills at RAF Croughton, what the board saw was two MSM’s followed by an AFCM as his first award by a Clinical Social Worker entry level position at Keesler as a field grade officer.  For a board trying to evaluate leadership potential this could have been seen as going backwards and he is questioning whether that made difference on the promotion board.  

The other two items on his complaint were the one’s AFPC/DPPPO agrees were timely – namely, that his OSB was incorrect as it met the board through no fault of his own.  He will not belabor these points even though he does not agree with the advisory opinions to the AFBCMR.  The bottom line is that he did timely inquiry into the discrepancies on his OSB and AFPC did not update the information.  His bachelor’s degree and his second overseas long tour were missing from his OSB when it met the board.  When he had his non-select post board interview with Col G__, she informed him that these omissions made him eligible for an appeal because the other promotion candidate’s records would have met the board without these discrepancies.  These two items may be minor points by themselves unless taken in conjunction with what happened to him at Keesler and seen in the context of a weaker record meeting the promotion board as compared to the other candidates – a record that did not accurately reflect his consistent duty performance for the Army and Air Force over many years.

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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse that failure to timely file.

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board took note that the Overseas Duty History and academic information may not have been available in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) for the board’s review.  However, the selection board had his entire OSR at their disposal, reflecting the correct overseas duty at RAF Croughton, England and his academic information during the convening of the CY02B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.   With respect to the contested duty title, the applicant provides no documentation substantiating his allegation that the duty title of the 8 July 1999 OPR is inaccurate; therefore, we find no basis upon which to alter it or the corresponding OSB entry. In addition, evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that his commander acted inappropriately in deciding what type of medal was warranted or that he abused his discretionary authority in rendering that decision.  Furthermore, and more importantly, we have seen no evidence that the errors on his OSB caused his record to be so erroneous or misleading that the duly constituted selection, vested with the discretionary authority to select officers for promotion, was unable to make a reasonable decision concerning the applicant’s promotability when compared to his peers.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 a 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 BC-2003-02548 in Executive Session on 29 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, undated.
	Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Jul 03
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Oct 03.

	Vice Chair