RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02441
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  XXXXX

XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED: YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 JANUARY 2006

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected by removing the references to her excessive work on her Calendar Year (CY) 02B (2 Dec 02) (P0602B) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) and Professional Military Education (PME) worksheet; modifying her PRFs for the P0602B and CY03B (27 Oct 03) (P0603B) Colonel CSBs, to include critical stratification information such as military awards, and to include a Definitely Promote (DP) bottom line overall recommendation; recommending to the Chief of Staff that she be issued immediate orders to an appropriate in-residence Senior Service School (SSS) and be considered for a command billet, and that her corrected record be considered for promotion by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the P0602B and P0603B boards.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant’s counsel states her record should be corrected because her P0602B PRF and PME Worksheet contain inappropriate, sexist, and inaccurate comments that prejudiced her right to fair consideration for in-residence SSS and promotion to the grade of colonel.  

She was prejudiced by the P0602B and P0603B PRFs because these reports failed to disclose that she had received the Defense Security Cooperation Agency Director’s Award in 2002, as well as other critical stratification.  She believes that due to the developing trend of prejudicial actions, it is very likely she was denied fair consideration to compete for a Communications Squadron Commander billet.

In support of applicant’s appeal, counsel provided his expanded comments, copies of the contested PME/AFIT/RTFB/Officer Worksheet (original draft and finalized version), the contested PRFs, and the Nomination for DSCA Director’s Award.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a Regular Air Force officer serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Feb 99.  Applicant was considered below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) by the CY02B (3 Dec 02) (P0602B) and in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) by the CY03B (27 Oct 03) (P0603B) CSBs and was not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile for the last five reporting periods follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	18 Dec 99	Meets Standards (MS)
	18 Dec 00	MS
	18 Dec 01	MS
	18 Dec 02	MS
	15 Oct 03	MS

The DOD Directorate of Investigation of Senior Officials determined that the applicant was unable to provide any specific, credible information indicating that her senior rater was motivated by gender discrimination in his preparation and submission of her PRFs and PME/SSS application.  The evidence failed to establish that her senior rater acted on the basis of discrimination grounded on sex, or that his comments on her performance were based on anything other than her “merit, fitness, and capability,” as required by the DOD and Air Force Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) standards (Exhibit C).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this application and recommended denial.  Applicant did not submit an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  Applicant alleges that the PRF rendered for the P0603B CSB contained a sexist comment.  The statement: “Redefines “dedication” sent her home after a month of 14 hr days, 0200 telecons and no sleep” is not deemed a sexist remark.  She does not provide any evidence to substantiate why this would be considered a sexist comment.  

She contends that her P0602B and P0603B PRFs omitted critical stratification and missing awards.  The senior rater bears the responsibility of selecting what information is to be included in the PRFs; and what to leave out; which portions of the officer’s career to concentrate on, and which portions are supported by the record.  She should have received copies of the PRFs approximately 30 days before the CSB convened.  This would have provided ample time to work with her senior rater to request any changes or corrections to her PRF.  She does not state what corrective actions she took prior to the board convening.

In summary, she is requesting the PRF that was rendered for the P0602B be re-written to remove the sexist comment and include more stratification and the P0603B be re-written to also include more stratification.  However, she did not provide enough justification to support her request.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed this application and recommended denial to modify her PRFs and subsequently consider her record by an SSB.  They deferred to the advisory from the Officer Development Branch, which states, in part, that without confirmation from an investigation, they cannot determine that the worksheet contains an error.  If the investigation finds that the statements in question were incorrect and unfair, they do not recommend that she attend SSS at this point.  Instead, it is recommended that she be granted a permanent operational deferment from school since she is well outside of the window to attend in-residence SSS.  

A complete copy of the evaluations, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated her original contentions and states the advisory opinions do not refute her prior submission, which was fully supported by pertinent documentation.  

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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and that provided in support of applicant’s appeal, we found no evidence that the senior rater, who was tasked with the responsibility of assessing the applicant’s duty performance and demonstrated promotion potential, was motivated by gender discrimination in his preparation of her Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the CY02B and CY03B Colonel Central Selection Boards and the contested Professional Military Education (PME) Worksheet, or that the comments contained therein were inappropriate, sexist or inaccurate.  Additionally, we note that the same issues raised in this application were investigated by the DoD Directorate for Investigation of Senior Officials and it was determined that the evidence failed to establish that applicant’s senior rater acted on the basis of discrimination grounded on sex, or that his comments on her performance were based on anything other than her “merit, fitness, and capability,” as required by the DOD and Air Force Military Equal Opportunity standards.  The appropriate Air Force offices have addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with their opinions and recommendations.  Therefore, we adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s requests.

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02441 in Executive Session on 10 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  DoD IG Report, withdrawn.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Dec 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Feb 05.