RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00531
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for  the  period
22 Jun 95 through 22 Apr 96 be declared void and  removed  from  his
records.

2.    The Promotion Recommendation  Forms  (PRFs)  reviewed  by  the
Calendar  Year  1996B  (2 Dec  96)  and  CY97B  (8 Dec  97)  Colonel
selection boards be declared void and removed from his records.

3.    His corrected record be considered for promotion to the  grade
of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the  CYs  96B  and
97B Colonel Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR and PRFs should be removed from his record because
they  are  derogatory  and  based  on  inaccurate   and   incomplete
information.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  a   two-page
statement,  excerpts  from  the  Report  of   Investigation   (ROI),
statements from his previous and  current  commanders,  a  statement
from the rater of the contested OPR, an unsigned PRF for  the  CY96B
board, a copy of the CY96B PRF, and other documentation relating  to
his appeal.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)
is 19 Apr 79.  He is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in
the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective, and with a date of  rank
(DOR) of 1 Sep 91.

Applicant’s Officer Effectiveness Report (OER/OPR profile since 1985
follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              9 Apr 85                    1-1-1
              9 Apr 86                    1-1-1
              9 Apr 87                    1-1-1
              3 Jan 88                    1-1-1
              3 Jan 89               Meets Standards
             14 Jul 89               Meets Standards
              8 Apr 90               Meets Standards
             14 Mar 91               Meets Standards
             14 Mar 92               Meets Standards
             10 Aug 92               Meets Standards
             10 Aug 93               Meets Standards
             10 Aug 94               Meets Standards
             21 Jun 95               Meets Standards
           * 22 Apr 96   Does Not Meet Standards (Referral Rpt)
             22 Apr 97               Meets Standards
             22 Apr 98               Meets Standards
             22 Apr 99               Meets Standards

*  Contested report.

On or about 10 Apr 96, the applicant was informed by the  Air  Force
Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI) that a second lieutenant  in
his squadron was the subject of an  AFOSI  investigation  concerning
possible compromise of enlisted promotion testing materials.  At the
time, applicant knew the second lieutenant was  the  subject  of  an
earlier,   on-going   AFOSI   investigation   concerning    possible
unprofessional conduct.  Knowing that applicant should not  disclose
that information, he  told  the  second  lieutenant  she  was  under
investigation for possible compromise of promotion testing material.
 He also told her the specific basis  for  the  investigation.   The
applicant was reprimanded.  The commander indicated that applicant’s
conduct may have hampered an  on-going  criminal  investigation  and
created the impression that he abdicated his duty to the  Air  Force
in favor of the personal well-being of another.  His  poor  judgment
in handing the situation caused the commander to lose confidence  in
applicant as a commander.

On 16 Apr 96, the applicant was relieved from command  of  the  14th
Mission Support  Squadron  (MSS)  because  his  commander  had  lost
confidence in applicant’s ability to command.

On 25 Apr 96, applicant received a Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
disclosing information by telling the second lieutenant that she was
under investigation for possible  compromise  of  promotion  testing
material  and  for  telling  her  the   specific   basis   for   the
investigation.

On 25 Apr 96, the applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  LOR  and
submitted written comments.

On 7 May 96, applicant requested withdrawal of the LOR.

On  7 May  96,  the  LOR  was  filed  in   applicant’s   Unfavorable
Information File (UIF).

On 16 May 96, applicant requested the LOR and UIF  be  omitted  from
his officer selection record (OSR) and removal of the  LOR  and  UIF
from his records entirely.

On  11 Jun  96,  the  LOR  was  filed  in  the  applicant’s  Officer
Headquarters USAF Selection Record  and  Officer  Command  Selection
Record.

A similar appeal to remove the contested  report,  the  LOR/UIF  and
void the CY96B PRF  was  submitted  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

On 22 Jul 97, the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  denied
applicant’s appeal.  The ERAB was not convinced by  the  applicant’s
documentation.   The  ERAB   indicated   that,   while   there   are
considerable differences of opinion regarding the  matters  involved
in applicant’s case, the board’s only concern was whether or not the
contested reports were fair, accurate, and properly  prepared.   The
board found no errors in the contested reports nor in the process by
which  they  were  rendered.   Further,  there  was  not  sufficient
evidence to confirm  the  reports  were  inaccurate  assessments  of
applicant’s performance during the period  in  question.   The  ERAB
further indicated that the requests pertaining to removal of the LOR
and UIF were not within  the  purview  of  the  ERAB  and  were  not
considered by the board.

The applicant did not submit an appeal on the CY97 PRF to  the  ERAB
(which was rendered after he submitted the appeal  on  the  OPR  and
CY96B PRF).

On 12 Sep 96, an ROI was prepared concerning a series  of  incidents
which occurred involving the applicant  or  his  squadron.   Of  the
eight complaints raised by the applicant, the  allegation  that  the
LOR and the subsequent UIF  were  established  on  the  basis  of  a
difference of opinion in exercising the commander’s  discretion  was
substantiated and the allegation that the decision  to  relieve  the
applicant  from  command  of   his   squadron   was   improper   was
substantiated.  The allegation that Colonel  L---  showed  unethical
behavior by conspiring to slander the applicant was inconclusive.

On 21 Oct 96, SAF/IGQ requested a legal review from AF/JAG.

On  12 Dec  96,  AF/JAG  concluded   that   all   allegations   were
unsubstantiated except the allegation that the Relocation Assistance
Program Manager,  the  former  14th  FTW/CCE,  and  the  former  ALS
Commandant showed unethical behavior by conspiring  to  slander  the
applicant was inconclusive.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade
of colonel by  the  CY96B,  CY97B,  and  CY98C  (1 Dec  98)  Colonel
Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that applicant has  no  support  from  the
wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or  either  of  the
senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs  (Note:   The  senior
rater that prepared the CY96B PRF  was  also  the  reviewer  of  the
contested OPR).  DPPPE states that the excerpts  from  the  ROI  are
inconclusive and only show  that  the  investigating  officers  (IO)
concurred with two (of at least eight) allegations  (which  are  not
clearly identified) levied by the  applicant  in  a  complaint  (not
provided).  Applicant contends he submitted this  complaint  to  the
Secretary of the Air Force (who referred the complaint  to  the  Air
Force Inspector General (IG)).  These  allegations  appear  to  only
address the administrative/disciplinary actions taken  by  the  14th
Flying Training Wing (FTW)/CC (i.e.,  LOR,  UIF,  and  removal  from
command); they do not address the contested OPR or PRFs.  It  should
be noted that, while the ROI suggests that the  IOs  disagreed  with
the punishment levied by the 14th FTW/CC, according to the applicant
in his 18 Feb 99 memorandum, the findings were forwarded to the  Air
Force IG and Judge Advocate General (JAG)  who  disagreed  with  the
findings of the IOs.  The applicant did  not  include  documentation
confirming this disagreement in his application.   The  only  rating
chain support  provided  is  a  statement  from  the  rater  of  the
contested OPR.

DPPPE  agrees  with  the  ERAB’s  conclusion  in  their  22 Jul   97
memorandum.  There is no evidence of error in the contested  reports
or in the process by which  they  were  rendered.   While  there  is
obvious disagreement regarding the issues  involved  in  this  case,
these differences of  opinion  do  not,  in  themselves,  render  an
evaluation report inaccurate  or  unjust.   The  OPR  was  correctly
referred and processed and the subsequent  PRFs  properly  addressed
information contained in the applicant’s record.

DPPPE recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  requests.   A  primary
purpose of having multiple evaluators on evaluation  reports  is  to
provide a measure of checks  and  balances.   Evaluation  forms  are
designed to allow for evaluator disagreements.  The referral process
was  established  to  afford  ratees  an  opportunity   to   address
contentious issues for consideration by subsequent  evaluators.   In
this case, the contested OPR was properly processed as  required  by
Air Force instructions.  The  ratee  was  given  and  exercised  his
option to rebut the rater’s comments and each  subsequent  evaluator
had the opportunity to consider  both  sides  of  the  issue  before
rendering their assessments.  There were no flaws  in  the  process.
Likewise, the PRFs were written, properly taking  into  account  the
available information.

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

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
also reviewed this application and indicated that Air  Force  policy
is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it  becomes
a matter of record and  to  effectively  challenge  an  EPR,  it  is
necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain—not  only
for support, but  also  for  clarification/explanation.   While  the
applicant provided a statement from the rater of the contested  OPR,
what DPPP finds puzzling  is  the  rater’s  statement,  “…given  the
circumstances and her (the lieutenant) state of mind at the time, it
was the  appropriate  action  for  a  commander  to  take  with  his
subordinate.  I would have done the same thing…The  only  reason  it
was referred was because the interpretation of current Air Force and
AETC guidance required it in cases where a  UIF  existed.”   If  the
rater believes he would have taken the same action if he were  being
faced with the same circumstances as that  of  the  applicant,  then
DPPP questions why he stated  in  the  referral  OPR  the  applicant
“erred in judgement….”  Further, the  rater  does  not  specifically
state what Air Force and AETC guidance to  which  he  is  referring.
Without evidence to the contrary, it appears the contested  OPR  and
PRFs  were  accomplished  in  direct  accordance   with   applicable
regulations.

As a matter of note, DPPP sees the applicant  provided  an  unsigned
proposed CY96B PRF with his appeal.  Since he does not discuss it in
his appeal, it appears the applicant  is  assuming  the  Board  will
direct the senior rater to sign the proposed PRF in the event relief
is granted.  If the senior rater were supportive  of  this  venture,
then DPPP contends he would have signed the new PRF.  However, since
he did not, they can only conclude the senior rater  and  management
level review (MLR) president do not support reaccomplishment of this
PRF.  Further, it is not up to the  Board  to  be  an  investigative
body.  If the applicant desires to  have  this  PRF  reaccomplished,
then he must obtain the appropriate support and  signatures  on  the
PRF prior to submitting his appeal.  If the Board determines  relief
is warranted, and DPPP does not think they  should,  then  promotion
reconsideration by all three boards would be appropriate  since  the
22 Apr 96 OPR was a matter of record for these boards.  Based on the
evidence provided, DPPP recommends denial.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments,  is  attached
at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided  a  seven-
page rebuttal statement with a complete copy of the ROI, a statement
from  the  rater  of  the  contested  OPR  clarifying  concerns   by
AFPC/DPPP, a Request for Legal Review from  SAF/IGQ  to  AF/JAG,  an
excerpt from Military Commander and the Law, and, an amended ROI  by
JAG.

Applicant’s complete response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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 probable error or injustice.   After  a
thorough review of the evidence of record, including the  statements
from the rater of the contested OPR, and applicant’s submission,  we
are not persuaded that he should be given the requested relief.   We
find no evidence of error in the contested reports or in the process
by which  they  were  rendered.   In  our  opinion,  the  rater  was
responsible for assessing the  applicant’s  performance  during  the
period in question and is presumed to have rendered  his  evaluation
based on his observation of the applicant’s performance and there is
nothing in the evidence provided to  indicate  that  the  rater  was
unable to  render  an  independent  assessment  of  the  applicant’s
performance.   Further,  while  we  note  that  there  are   obvious
disagreements regarding the issues involved in this case,  we  agree
that these differences of opinion do not, in themselves,  render  an
evaluation report inaccurate or unjust.  We are of the opinion  that
the OPR was correctly referred and processed and the subsequent PRFs
properly addressed information contained in the applicant’s  record.
We believe that the commander  properly  and  legally  relieved  the
applicant from command duties based  on  his  behavior.   Therefore,
after reviewing the entire case, we find that the applicant has  not
sustained his burden  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or
injustice.  In view of the above and in the absence  of  substantial
evidence that the contested reports are in error or unjust, we  find
no compelling basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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
add to our understanding of the issue(s) 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 probable 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  this  application  in
Executive  Session  on  22 February  and  13 July  2000,  under  the
provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                  Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 May 99, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Jul 99, w/atchs
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Aug 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 6 Dec 99, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair