RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01387
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered  for  the  period
2 Mar 96 through 1 Mar 97 be  declared  void  and  removed  from  her
records.

2.    She be retroactively promoted to the  grade  of  major  by  the
Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) (8 Mar 99) Major Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report does not reflect a fair and accurate  evaluation
of her performance;  the  rater  was  under  undue  pressure  by  the
additional rater to ensure she did not succeed; the rater  stated  he
“didn’t think they should go through with  the  referral”;  and,  her
work environment was “skewed” detrimental to her success.   She  also
contends that the performance reports prior to and subsequent to  the
contested report provide positive proof of her capabilities,  talents
and exemplary record.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
is 19 Oct 90.  She is currently serving on extended active duty as  a
Chaplain in the grade of captain, effective, and with a date of  rank
(DOR) of 16 Jul 90.

Applicant’s OPR profile since 1993 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              7 Jun 93              Meets Standards
              7 Jun 94              Meets Standards
              8 May 95              Meets Standards
              1 Mar 96              Meets Standards
            * 1 Mar 97      Does Not Meets Standards
                                    (Referral Rpt)
              4 Aug 97              Meets Standards
             23 Apr 98              Meets Standards
              1 Dec 98              Meets Standards
             26 Oct 99              Meets Standards

*  Contested report.

The applicant previously appealed the contested  OPR  and  her  CY97B
(2 Jun 97) Major Board  (below-the-promotion  zone  (BPZ))  Promotion
Recommendation Form  (PRF)  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.   The  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was  not  convinced  by  the  applicant’s
documentation and denied her appeal.

Applicant has two nonselections by the CY99A and  CY00A  (24 Jan  00)
Major Boards.  As a result, she has an involuntary date of separation
(DOS) of 30 Sep 00.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed this application and indicated, in part, that the  applicant
alludes to a cultural conflict with the additional  rater.   However,
as pointed out in HQ AFPC/DPPP’s decision letter, dated 9 Mar 00,  it
was the rater who referred the  contested  evaluation  report.   DPPP
states that disagreements in the work place are not unusual  and,  in
themselves, do not substantiate an  evaluator  cannot  be  objective.
DPPP  opines  that  subordinates  are  required  to  abide  by  their
superior’s  decisions  and  if  there  was  a  conflict  between  the
applicant and the additional rater which was of  such  magnitude  the
additional rater could not be objective, DPPP believes  the  reviewer
would  have  known  about  it  since  the  OPR  indicates  all  three
evaluators were assigned to the same location.  The applicant has not
provided specific instances  based  on  firsthand  observation  which
substantiate the relationship between her and  the  additional  rater
was strained to the point an  objective  evaluation  was  impossible.
The letters of  support  and  other  extraneous  documents  that  the
applicant provides are not germane to the report  in  question.   The
rater  states  that  the  applicant  did,  in  fact,   have   serious
limitations in her ability to communicate clearly which leads DPPP to
believe the OPR is accurate as written.  The rater did  not  indicate
he now has information not available when  the  report  was  rendered
which substantiates the applicant was dealt an injustice.

While the applicant contends the contested OPR is  inconsistent  with
previous and subsequent performance, it is not reasonable to  compare
one report covering a certain period  of  time  with  another  report
covering a different period of time because this does not  allow  for
changes in the ratee’s performance and does not follow the intent  of
the governing regulation, AFI 36-2402.

Reference applicant’s request for direct promotion, an officer may be
qualified for promotion but, in the judgment of  a  selection  board,
he/she may not be the best  qualified  of  those  available  for  the
limited number of promotion vacancies.  Absent clear-cut evidence the
applicant would have  been  a  selectee  by  the  CY99A  Board,  DPPP
believes a duly constituted board  applying  the  complete  promotion
criteria is in the most advantageous position to  render  this  vital
determination.  Further, to grant a direct promotion would be  unfair
to all other officers who have extremely competitive records and also
did not get promoted.  Other than her own opinion, the applicant  has
provided no substantiation to  her  allegations  and  DPPP  does  not
support direct promotion.  Based on the  evidence  provided  and  the
findings of the ERAB, DPPP recommends denial.

A complete copy of the Air Force  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant  on
23 Jun 00 for review and response.  As of this date, no response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice  warranting  removal  of
the report in question.  In our opinion, the  statement  provided  by
the rater of the contested report raises some concern that there  may
have been undue influence from the  additional  rater  for  him  (the
rater) to write a referral report.  In this respect, the rater states
that he remembers telling the additional rater that he did not  think
they should go through with the referral OPR and the additional rater
was very exasperated by his (the rater’s) comment and strongly  urged
him to submit the referral as it was  written.   Further,  he  states
that he was deeply torn at the time regarding whether or not to write
a referral OPR.  He did not believe the additional rater  wanted  the
applicant to succeed.  In view of these statements and in recognition
of applicant’s  previous  and  subsequent  superior  performance,  we
believe that sufficient doubt  exists  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the
contested report.  Therefore, to eliminate  any  doubt  and  possible
injustice to the applicant, we recommend that the OPR in question  be
declared void and removed from her  records.   We  further  recommend
that the applicant’s corrected record be considered for promotion  by
a Special  Selection  Board.   The  applicant’s  request  for  direct
promotion to the grade of major is duly noted.  However,  we  believe
that a duly constituted selection board is in the  most  advantageous
position to render this determination and that its prerogative to  do
so should only be usurped under the most extraordinary circumstances.
 Therefore,  her  request  for  direct  promotion  is  not  favorably
considered.  Accordingly, we recommend that the records be  corrected
to the extent 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  the  Company  Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B,  rendered  for  the  period
2 March 1996 through 1 March 1997, be declared void and removed  from
her records.

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the
grade of major by Special Selection  Board  for  the  CY99A  (8 March
1999) Central Major Board and any subsequent  boards  for  which  the
contested report was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 7 September 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
              Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

All members voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 00.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 13 Jun 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Jun 00.


                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 00-01387




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 the Company Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period
2 March 1996 through 1 March 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void
and removed from her records.

      It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to
the grade of major by Special Selection Board for the CY99A (8 March
1999) Central Major Board and any subsequent boards for which the
contested report was a matter of record.




                                                         JOE G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                         Air Force
Review Boards Agency