RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02681
                                  INDEX CODE:  107.00,111.03
      APPLICANT                   COUNSEL:  NONE

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30  May  1997  be
removed from his records, the Air Force  Achievement  Medal  (AFAM)  awarded
for the period 20 Oct 95 to 1 Jul 98 be upgraded to  a  Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM), and, his name be placed on the candidate list for  in-residence
Professional Military Education (PME).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was the victim of racial discrimination by his immediate supervisor.   On
19 Nov 99 Wing Military Equal opportunity Office (WG/ME) confirmed  that  he
was  discriminated  against  by  his  immediate  supervisor.   The  unlawful
discrimination    resulted    in    inconsistent    treatment,    suppressed
opportunities, and inferior  ratings  for  him  and  other  members  of  the
targeted ethnic group.  Discrimination of any kind is a serious matter  and,
as such, his records are tainted.   Without  immediate  correction  he  will
continue to suffer from this situation.

In support of the application, the applicant provides a  personal  statement
and numerous other documents pertaining his service and  his  MEO  complaint
(Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Jul 89 the applicant was appointed a 2nd lieutenant in the Reserve  of
the Air Force and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty  (EAD)  on
27 Sep 89.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on  5  Mar  96  and
progressively promoted to the grade of major, effective and with a  date  of
rank of 1 Nov 00.  Subsequent to his promotion to the  grade  of  major,  he
received 7 OPRs in which the overall rating was  "Meets  Standards."   Based
on prior enlisted service, his Total Active Federal  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) is 19 Jul 82.

On  19  Jan  2000  the  applicant  was  notified  that  his   complaint   of
discrimination based upon his race was partially substantiated (See  Exhibit
B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPR  indicates  that  they  reviewed  the
contested report and found no disparaging  comments  from  the  rater.   PME
recommendations  are  optional  on  OPRs  and  the  omission   of   optional
information on a report has no effect on the validity of the report.  It  is
entirely within the discretion  of  the  rating  chain  whether  or  not  to
recommend the applicant for  PME  and  this  discretion  expires  after  the
report is signed by the evaluators and becomes a matter  of  record.   There
is  no  evidence  provided  to  substantiate  the  rater  intentionally  and
maliciously  omitted  a  PME  recommendation  and  the  absence  of  a   PME
recommendation does not flaw the report.  With the exception of  an  omitted
PME recommendation, the applicant has not challenged  the  validity  of  the
content of the OPR.

To effectively challenge an OPR, it  is  necessary  to  hear  from  all  the
members of the rating chain.   The  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  any
information/support from the rating chain on the  contested  OPR.   However,
he has provided two letters from the Chief, Military Equal  Opportunity  and
the Director, Equal Opportunity.  These  two  statements  are  vague.   Both
state the applicant's allegations were found to be partially  substantiated.
 Neither statement indicates what the allegations were that  were  partially
substantiated, and neither indicates the rater was  incapable  of  rendering
an objective and accurate evaluation report.  Without  statements  from  the
additional rater and reviewer,  DPPPA  can  only  conclude  the  report  was
accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.

DPPPA contends that if the contested report were going to  have  an  adverse
affect on the applicant's career, then  the  P0400A  board  would  not  have
promoted him.  DPPPA recommends the request be time-barred and  is  strongly
opposed to the applicant's request to require his name  be  on  a  candidate
list for in-residence PME.  If this request  is  approved,  it  would  be  a
travesty and unfair to all other officers who were  selected  for  promotion
by the same board but not selected for ISS candidacy (Exhibit C).

The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, in addressing  the  upgrade  of
the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) to a Meritorious Service Medal  (MSM)
indicates that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  any  documentation
showing  that  a  written  recommendation  for  the  MSM   signed   by   the
recommending official and endorsed by the next higher official in the  chain
of command was placed into official channels.  Therefore,  DPPPR  recommends
disapproval of the applicant's request to upgrade his AFAM (Exhibit D).

The PME Branch,  AFPC/DPAPE,  states  that  the  applicant  met  the  PO499B
promotion board and was not selected for candidacy for Intermediate  Service
School (ISS).  Candidacy for ISS is a direct result of being considered  and
selected for promotion to major, based on the order of merit  produced  from
the promotion board.  It is unknown to DPAPE  whether  or  not  a  corrected
record would change the board results.  Should the Board find  in  favor  of
the applicant, DPAPE recommended the applicant's  request  be  forwarded  to
AFPC/DPPPAB for a candidacy determination (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force  evaluations.  In  responding  to  the
AFPC/DPPPR memorandum he states  he  attempted  to  correct  the  decoration
issue through administrative channels in  the  Pentagon  Military  Personnel
flight (MPF).  However, he was informed  that  they  would  not  accept  his
application because the Wg/ME  memorandum  did  not  specifically  name  the
individual guilty of the discrimination and he  would  have  to  submit  his
request to the AFBCMR.  The applicant states that he never asserted  that  a
written recommendation for the MSM was  submitted  into  official  channels.
The lack of an appropriate medal is a part of his discrimination case.   The
award of an MSM is in line with his position, grade,  time  in  service  and
prior precedent.

In response to the AFPC/DPPPA memorandum the applicant contends  he  is  not
requesting action by the board  due  to  error  but  rather  the  correction
should be based on the injustice he suffered due to  racial  discrimination.
He challenged the validity of the OPR as being weak and not  accounting  for
the accomplishments of the reporting year and is requesting that the OPR  be
stricken from his records.  While it is true he was selected for  promotion,
it in no  way  provides  relief  from  the  injustice  he  suffered  and  is
contained in his records.  His records need to be corrected so that he  does
not continue to receive injustice from racial  discrimination  and  thus  be
able to fairly compete in the future (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  removal  of   the
contested OPR.  The applicant's  contention  that  as  a  result  of  racial
discrimination his OPR was weak, did not  account  for  his  accomplishments
during the reporting year,  and  omitted  recommendations  for  professional
military  education  (PME)  was  duly  noted.   However,   after   carefully
reviewing the evidence provided, we do not  find  his  claim  to  have  been
substantiated and are not persuaded by the evidence presented  that  removal
of the contested report is appropriate.  Accordingly, we find no  compelling
basis  upon  which  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought   in   this
application.

4.  In view of the above and in the absence of  evidence  showing  that  his
record was inaccurate or erroneous when  he  was  considered  by  the  major
selection board for in residence PME, we  have  no  basis  to  overturn  the
decision of the duly constituted selection board with respect to  his  rank-
order for the purposes  of  PME  selection.   Accordingly,  the  applicant's
request in this matter is not favorably considered.

5.  In regards to the applicant's request his Air  Force  Achievement  Medal
that he was  awarded  for  his  tour  at  Sheppard  AFB  be  upgraded  to  a
Meritorious Service Medal;  award  of  a  medal  upon  permanent  change  of
station is awarded at the discretion of the individual's  supervisor  and/or
commander.  We carefully reviewed his  contentions  and  available  records,
and  note  that  he  has  not  provided  a  written  recommendation  from  a
recommending official and endorsement by the next  higher  official  in  his
chain.   Therefore,  we  are  left  with  the  applicant's   unsubstantiated
allegations, which are, in  our  view,  insufficient  to  warrant  favorable
consideration of his request.

6.  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 issue  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 7 February 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Mr. Phillip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 30 Oct 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 24 Oct 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPE, dated 11 Oct 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Nov 00.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant's Response, dated 5 Dec 00.





                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair