RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03043
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01

      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  Charles W. Gittins

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period  30
Dec 97 through 31 Jan 99 be removed from his records.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR covering the period 30 Dec 97 to 31  Jan  99  was  prepared  in
violation  of  governing  Air  Force  instructions  and  is  materially
inaccurate.

In support of the applicant’s contentions, his counsel submitted a  24-
page brief with 15 Exhibits.

Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to  information  contained  in  the  personnel  data  system,
applicant  is  presently  a  captain  serving  on  active  duty  as  an
acquisition manager.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is
1 June 1996.  A profile of his performance reports follows:

        Closeout Date             Overall Rating


         19 Dec 96                Training Report

         29 Dec 97                Meets Standards
        *31 Jan 99                Does Not Meet Standards
         21 Jul 99                Meets Standards
         21 Jul 00                Meets Standards

* Contested OPR

According to documents provided by the applicant, on  18  Jul  00,  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the  applicant’s  request
to void his OPR closing out 31 Jan 99.  The  ERAB  did,  however,  make
corrections to the report  by  changing  line  one  of  the  Reviewer’s
comments in Section VIII from “Had daily alert  schedule  altered--will
not  perform  duties  with  fully  qualified  female  crew  member”  to
“Unacceptable    professionalism--refuses    to     accept     personal
responsibilities of a missile combat crew member.”

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  evaluated  this
application and recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   In
addition to their current evaluation of applicant’s request  they  also
provided a copy of the legal review done on  the  applicant’s  original
ERAB appeal in support of their recommendation.

The applicant’s OPR has been previously considered and corrected by the
ERAB.  Their decision was made after careful consideration to include a
thorough Judge Advocate General (JAG) review.  The JAG review concluded
the applicant had no legal grounds to invalidate  the  OPR.   The  ERAB
deemed the report valid and they concur  with  their  original  ruling.
The applicant does not provide any new information that convinces  them
to  change  the  original  ERAB  decision.   They  conclude  that   the
applicant’s statement “If I were to pull alerts under the  new  policy,
the nuclear mission would receive much less than 100% of  my  attention
and faculties.  My primary worry would be for the health  of  my  soul.
So long as being a missileer means compromising my faith, I will not be
able to perform my alert duties effectively.” was an admission that the
senior rater and subsequent evaluator could not ignore and had a  great
impact on the decision to document this behavior in his OPR.

The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel responded to the Air Force evaluation in a nine-
page brief with one enclosure.  Applicant responded to issues raised by
both AFPC/DPPPE and AFPC/JAG.

Applicant’s counsel concluded by stating that based on the  information
presented in his brief, it is clear that the adverse  OPR  prepared  by
the Reviewer on the applicant is substantively inaccurate and  contains
misstatements of cold, hard fact.  The adverse comments do not document
performance or behavior on the part of the applicant; they simply  take
issue and disagree with  the  applicant’s  honest,  conscientious,  and
strongly held  religious  beliefs,  which  the  command  had,  for  the
previous one and one-half years, accommodated.   Further,  the  adverse
evaluation clearly  was  a  disciplinary  action  for  the  content  of
statements of conscience required  to  be  disclosed  pursuant  to  the
personnel reliability program (PRP) which ultimately  resulted  in  the
applicant’s decertification.  As such,  the  adverse  evaluation  is  a
disciplinary action for failure to maintain certification under the PRP
and a clear violation of AFI 36-2402 and AFI 36-2401.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

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.  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 their rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  In particular, the Board feels that the removal of
the inaccurate statements from  the  contested  OPR  by  the  ERAB  was
adequate and believes that the report now provides a complete and  fair
assessment of the applicant’s overall performance.  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 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 11 April 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
      Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated, 1 Nov 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 Dec 00,
                w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Jan 01.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant’s Counsel, dated
                16 Feb 01, w/atchs.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair