RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01510
		INDEX NUMBER:  130.00; 111.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 5 Feb 99 through 4 Feb 00 be voided and removed from his records.

He be considered by special selection board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards as applicable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through his counsel, applicant asserts that the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) previously denied the applicant’s appeal to void the contested OPR and did not provide any specific justification for its denial.  The ERAB failed to address the significant representations made in the applicant’s submission to that body.

In support of his appeal, counsel provides the complete previous submission to the ERAB, which made the following assertions regarding the OPR closing 4 Feb 00:

	  a.  The OPR was sub par and designed to be a feint praise career-ending device without being a referral OPR.

	  b.  The rater in his narrative portion failed to urge any professional military education (PME) and failed to mention the applicant’s capacity for greater responsibility.

	  c.  The additional rater made no mention of any PME and merely stated, “Continue to challenge with greater responsibility.”

Applicant’s counsel provides the background of events that he claims led to the applicant’s contested OPR.  He provides supporting statements to support their contention that applicant’s rater wrote the contested OPR from a biased perspective.

The complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a Chaplain serving on active duty in the grade of major.  His Total Active Military Service Date is 15 Aug 84.  He entered active duty on 29 Aug 88.  He was considered, but not selected, for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A, CY01B, CY02B, and CY03A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.  The applicant submitted an application to the ERAB on 8 Dec 03 with the same requests as indicated above.  On 5 Apr 04, the ERAB denied the applicant’s appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 4 Feb 00.  The rater has the responsibility to make recommendations for PME or increased responsibility, but they are not mandatory comments that must be made on a report.  A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities.  The letters of support provided by the applicant do not directly relate to the contested OPR.

The applicant contends that a change of rating official (CRO) should have been accomplished.  However, the applicant has not provided any documentation to prove a CRO should have been done or if there was enough supervision.

The applicant contends the Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) duty he was performing is not a Chaplain duty.  AFPC/DPPPE references AFI 44-153 as including a chaplain in the makeup of the team.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration since AFPC/DPPPE has recommended that the contested OPR not be voided.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel responded to the Air Force evaluations.  Counsel states that the principal advisory prepared by AFPC/DPPPE is off the mark for the following reasons:

	  a.  They never suggested that a chaplain should not serve in a CISM capacity, rather, that the CISM chaplain operative should report to the wing commander.

	  b.  They demonstrated bias and did not base their claim solely upon the lack of recommendations for PME or future responsibilities.

	  c.  They showed that the applicant’s prior rater supervised him far in excess of 120 days and that there should have been a change of rater OPR.

Counsel opines that the advisory opinion reflects a lack of understanding of the case and that relief should be granted.

Counsel’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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While we note the areas of dissatisfaction with the OPR pointed out by counsel, we do not find that the OPR violates Air Force directives or, based on the evidence of record, constitutes an injustice.  Additionally, insufficient evidence has been provided to support counsel’s contention that the applicant should have received a change of rater report, which, subsequently, would have changed the period of supervision indicated on the contested report.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 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-2004-01510 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 Jul 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 04.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 5 Aug 04.