RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03695
					INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.01, 									111.03, 111.05
		 			COUNSEL:  

					HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 14 Jan 94 and 14 Jan 95 be declared void and removed from her records.

2.  The Air Force Commendation Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM 2OLC), for the period 3 Mar 93 to 29 Feb 96, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM 3OLC).

3. She be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel or be afforded consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB), with back pay and allowances upon promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The additional rater of the contested reports, Col M, effectively undermined her promotion opportunities and career. While the contested OPRs do not contain adverse information per se, they are considerably weaker than all the reports prior to and after Col   ’s evaluations. Even before he met her, Col   was making inquiries because, based on her official photograph, he believed she was overweight. He later told her he would not support her for any command position because she did not present a good command image. Col   directly contacted Air Force officials and, based on unsubstantiated allegations and personal biases, “blackballed” her from being assigned to a command position. In 1994, she contacted a member of the Inspector General (IG) team but was told investigation was not warranted and she should move on with her life. She also sought review and upgrade of the AFCM, but this effort was shot down by the influence of both Col   and his replacement. But for Col   ’s unlawful actions, she would have been promoted to lieutenant colonel. His malicious discrimination was contrary to Air Force policy, and his prejudice tainted her record for the selection boards.

The rater of the 14 Jan 94 and 95 contested reports (and the uncontested 14 Jan 96 OPR) provides two statements. One statement advises he recommended the applicant for the MSM, which was downgraded to an AFCM by Col   ’s successor. The rater asserts in his second statement that Col   disliked overweight people, noting he himself was asked by Col   in a phone interview if he was overweight. Col   commented frequently that he did not like the applicant’s physical appearance. The rater states the applicant took medication to treat a thyroid condition, had plastic surgery at her own expense to correct her chin and neck, and voluntarily weighed in to show she was within Air Force standards, but nothing changed Col   ’s extreme dislike of her. He adds the applicant was so stressed by Col   ’s negative comments and opinions of her that she resumed smoking and sought treatment for depression. The rater believes the applicant was very good at her job but Col   was biased against security police officers in general and the applicant in particular. Even after Col   left, he used his influence to adversely affect the applicant’s assignment and promotion opportunities.

The rater of the 19 Dec 92 OPR also submits a statement and praises the applicant’s leadership and professional capabilities. Knowing Col   ’s reputation for dealing with people based on surface issues, he was concerned about the applicant’s assignment to Pacific Air Forces (PACAF). The applicant’s name came up for possible assignments over the next three years, but he learned Col   always contacted the command and recommended against her selection. Further, Col   suggested the applicant leave PACAF, but when she volunteered for reassignment, he proceeded to undermine her efforts, placing her in a classic “Catch 22” situation. He believes that, no matter how the applicant excelled, she could never overcome Col   ’s bias.

Counsel’s complete submission, including a 31-page brief and attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

In a statement provided under separate cover, the Director of Manpower & Organization, HQ USAF/DPM (brigadier general) supports the applicant’s request to rectify an error. He lauds her exceptional leadership, wide breadth of experience and passionate mentoring skills. He believes her warrior ethos and work ethic, coupled with caring leadership, are exactly what the Air Force needs to command and to build and mold future leaders.

A complete copy of the statement is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 4 Feb 81 and was progressively promoted to the grade of major with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Jul 93. 

During the period in question, she served as the XXXX, Plans & Resources Branch for XXXX at XXXX AFB, XX. The additional rater (Col   ) of the 14 Jan 94 and 14 Jan 95 contested OPRs, who was also the reviewer, was the XXXXXX of Security Police, XXXX, XXXX AFB, XX.  The applicant’s performance reports for the period 4 Feb 81 through 28 Jun 88 were under the previous evaluation system and reflect the highest ratings in performance and potential. The OPRs for the period 20 Dec 89 through 1 Sep 99 come under the current evaluation system and all, including the two contested reports, reflect that the applicant met all standards.

She was awarded the AFCM 2OLC for the period 3 Mar 93 to 29 Feb 96 on 12 Mar 96.

The applicant was considered but not selected to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C), CY98B, CY99A, and CY99B lieutenant colonel Central Selection Boards. These boards convened on 21 Jul 97, 1 Jul 98, 19 Apr 99, and 30 Nov 99, respectively. The overall recommendation on all four Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) was “Promote.”

On 15 Mar 01, the applicant was awarded an MSM 3OLC for the period 2 Mar 96 to 31 Oct 00 for her service at her subsequent assignment at XXXX AFB, XX. [Note: If the AFCM 2OLC is upgraded to an MSM 3OLC for the period ending 29 Feb 96, the MSM 3OLC for the period ending 31 Oct 00 would have to be changed to 4OLC.]

The applicant retired in the grade of major on 1 Nov 00 after 20 years and 4 months of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE contends the applicant provides absolutely no proof that Col   was biased against her because of her physical appearance. The applicant, as well as other evaluators, should provide firsthand evidence clearly showing how the conflict prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate report. In his statement, the rater indicated the additional rater disliked the applicant based on her appearance and other reasons; however, this statement was written years after the allegation took place. Further, the rater does not state the reports should be removed or voided, he never alleges the reports he signed were erroneous, and he does not indicate the additional rater coerced him to write the report in a certain way. Neither the applicant nor the rater went to the appropriate authorities, such as the IG, to make a complaint or request an investigation. Instead the applicant has waited nine years to contest the accuracy of the reports. Denial is strongly recommended, as the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence sustaining her allegations.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPR advises an individual’s supervisor determines the decoration to recognize accomplishments. However, each official in the chain of command must provide an endorsement to approve, disapprove, or downgrade the decoration recommended. Ultimately, it’s up to the approval authority to decide to approve, disapprove, or downgrade the decoration. The applicant did not provide any evidence recommending officials requested reconsideration of the downgraded decoration, as is afforded in the governing regulation. HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the Board direct the applicant to exercise the provisions outlined in para. 3.3.8. of AFI 36-2803. Once that is accomplished and written evidence of the approval authority’s decision on the request to reconsider the original decoration is obtained, then the applicant may resubmit her DD Form 149.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing to add to the HQ AFPC/DPPPE and HQ AFPC/DPPPR advisories. As for direct promotion, both Congress and DOD have made clear their intent that perceived errors affecting promotion should be addressed and resolved through SSBs. Without access to all the competing records and an appreciation of their content, DPPPO believes the practice of sending cases to SSBs is the fairest and best practice. Direct promotion should be considered only in the most extraordinary circumstances where SSB consideration would be totally unworkable. Direct promotion and, if the OPRs are not voided, SSB consideration should both be denied. If the Board decides to upgrade the AFCM 2OLC to the MSM 3OLC, then SSB consideration should be granted with the inclusion of the upgraded decoration.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. 

Also provided is an additional statement from the rater of the 14 Jan 94 and 95 contested OPRs, indicating he was pressured by the additional rater to make the OPRs weaker than they should have been. He asserts the additional rater’s biases against the applicant prevented him from rating the applicant fairly and realistically. He wholeheartedly supports the applicant’s request to void these reports.

A complete copy of counsel’s rebuttal, with attachment, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant partial relief. After reviewing the supporting statements from the rater of the contested reports, the rater of the 19 Dec 92 OPR, and the Director of Manpower & Organization, HQ USAF/DPM (an active duty general officer), we are persuaded they provide convincing evidence of the applicant’s capabilities and the additional rater’s overt prejudice against her. The additional rater apparently was intolerant about certain physical features, regardless of an individual’s performance, and pursued a personal vendetta against the applicant for several years. In this regard, the additional rater attempted to negatively impact the applicant’s career and assignment selection, even when he was no longer in her evaluation chain. In our view, these actions give credence to counsel’s contention that the lackluster OPRs and the downgraded MSM were influenced by the additional rater’s prejudice. While we cannot determine absolutely that these issues were the cause of the applicant’s nonselection to the grade of lieutenant colonel, we believe her opportunity for promotion consideration may have been compromised. As a result, we recommend the 14 Jan 94 and 14 Jan 05 OPRs be voided from her records and the 29 Feb 96 AFCM 2OLC be upgraded to an MSM 3OLC. The MSM 3OLC for the period ending 31 Oct 00, therefore, would have to be changed to an MSM 4OLC. The applicant's request for direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel was not favorably considered. We note that officers compete for promotion under the whole person concept, whereby selection boards carefully assess many factors. An officer may be qualified for promotion but, in the judgment of a promotion board vested with the discretionary authority to make the selections, may not be the best qualified of available candidates for the limited number of promotion vacancies. Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would have been a selectee had her record reflected the recommended changes, we believe a duly constituted SSB applying the complete promotion criteria is in the most advantageous position to render this vital determination, and that its prerogative to do so should only be usurped under extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the applicant’s records should be amended as indicated below. 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

	a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, AF Forms 707A, rendered for the periods 20 December 1992 through 14 January 1994, and 15 January 1994 through 14 January 1995, be declared void and removed from her records.

	b.  The Air Force Commendation Medal, with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster, for the period 3 March 1993 to 29 February 1996, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal, with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster.

	c.  The Meritorious Service Medal, for the period 2 March 1996 to 31 October 2000, be changed to reflect 4th Oak Leaf Cluster, rather than 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster.

It is further recommended that her records be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board and for any subsequent selection boards for which the above Officer Performance Reports were a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 May 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03695 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 03, & Counsel’s Letter,
                  dated 19 Nov 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, Counsel, dated 21 Jan 04, w/Statement.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 Jan 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 10 Feb 04.

   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Mar 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 3 May 04, w/atch.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2003-03695

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to   , be corrected to show that:

	     a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, AF Forms 707A, rendered for the periods 20 December 1992 through 14 January 1994, and 15 January 1994 through 14 January 1995, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from her records.

	     b.  The Air Force Commendation Medal, with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster, for the period of 3 March 1993 to 29 February 1996, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal, with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster.

	     c.  The Meritorious Service Medal, for the period 2 March 1996 to 31 October 2000, be changed to reflect 4th Oak Leaf Cluster, rather than 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster.

	It is further directed that her records, as corrected be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board and for any subsequent selection boards for which the above Officer Performance Reports were a matter of record.