RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01559
                       INDEX CODE: 107.00,111.05,131.01

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The narrative portion of his Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)
rendered for the period 27 September 1997  through  6  June  1998,  be
changed or void the entire OPR.

2.    His Air Force Commendation Medal with Second  Oak  Leaf  Cluster
(AFCM w/2OLC) be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

3.    His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be updated to reflect award of
the AFCM w/2OLC.

4.    He be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar  Year  2000A
(CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is an inaccurate assessment  of  his  performance
during the contested period.

The applicant states that he  was  placed  at  an  unfair  competitive
disadvantage at the CY00A lieutenant colonel board.  He  believes  the
evidence submitted shows that, just as with  his  challenged  OPR,  an
inappropriate, conscious, and deliberate  effort  was  made  with  the
decoration in order to negatively impact his career progression.   His
achievements which  were  ignored  in  the  process  of  justifying  a
downgraded award shows a calculated effort to achieve  a  specifically
desired and inappropriate end.  The  board  that  considered  him  for
promotion was not able to genuinely assess his record using the “whole
person concept.”  The obvious presence of a jaded and unjust OPR,  the
conspicuous absence  of  a  MSM,  and  the  apparent  absence  of  any
decoration for  a  six-year  period  undoubtedly  sent  a  subtle  yet
deleterious message to the board about his suitability for  promotion.




In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a personal  statement,
OPR closing  6  June  1998,  Special  Order  GG-274  and  citation  to
accompany award of the AFCM 2OLC, the Officer Selection Record  (OSR),
dated 15 November 2000, and other documentation.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Selection Board which  convened  on
28 November 2000.

The applicant did not appeal the contested report under the provisions
of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,  3
June 1994, as would have been appropriate.  They did  not  return  the
application because the  member  did  not  provide  support  from  his
evaluators.

OPR profile since 1985, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 1 Apr 94              Meets Standards (MS)
                  26 Sep 95              Training Report (TR)
                  26 Sep 96                  (MS)
                  26 Sep 97                  (MS)
                *  6 Jun 98                  (MS)
                 6 Jun 99                    (MS)
                 6 Jun 00                    (MS)

* Contested report

On 25 February 1998, the applicant applied for separation from the Air
Force.  His Date of Separation (DOS) was scheduled for 31 August 1998.
 On 3 March 1998  his  request  was  approved.   On  11 May  1998,  he
requested withdrawal of his approved  DOS  to  accept  a  position  in
SAF/IA, which was approved.

On  4  September  1998,  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  Air  Force
Commendation, 2nd Oak  Leaf  Cluster,  (AFCM  2OLC),  for  the  period
3 October 1995 to 6 July 1998.







The AFCM 2OLC was not reflected on applicant’s OSB  before  the  CY00A
board.  Also, there  was  a  discrepancy  letter  filed  in  the  OSR,
indicating the personnel data system (PDS) was not updated to  reflect
this award.  The citation accompanying the AFCM 2OLC was filed in  the
applicant’s OSR.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Awards  and  Decorations  Section,  Recognition  Programs
Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this  application  and  states  that  the
applicant served as Evolved Expendable Launch  Vehicle  (EELV)  Source
Selection Manager and as Chief of Acquisition  Development  Branch  at
the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC)  at  Los  Angeles  AFB,  CA
during the period 3 October 1995 through 6 July 1998.  He was  awarded
the AFCM w/2OLC upon reassignment.

Applicant has not  provided  any  documentation  to  substantiate  his
allegations that his supervisor and commander deliberately  downgraded
his end-of-tour decoration from an MSM to an  AFCM  w/2OLC.   The  SMC
Awards and Decorations Guide is just that: a guide.  AFI 36-2803,  The
Air Force Awards and Decoration Program, 1 January 1998,  states  that
the recommending official  determines  the  decoration  and  inclusive
dates; it also states  that  decorations  will  not  be  based  on  an
individual’s grade, but on the level of responsibility and  manner  of
performance.  It is also the recommending  official’s  prerogative  to
choose the method of justifying (OPRs or bullets)  the  recommendation
for a decoration.

The applicant  provided  a  copy  of  his  computer-generated  Officer
Selection Brief, dated 15 November 2000, and it reflects award of only
two AFCMs.  However, it is the individual’s responsibility  to  ensure
that this information is correct before a  promotion  board  convenes.
The applicant only needed to take a copy of the order awarding him the
AFCM w/2OLC to his servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) and  have
the information updated.  Apparently, the applicant did not check  his
records prior to the board.  Since the information  contained  in  the
computer-generated OSB is dependent  upon  the  individual  contacting
his/her MPF for corrections, that issue is not considered a matter for
presentation to the Board.

The applicant alleges that his supervisor and  commander  deliberately
downgraded his end-of-tour decoration in a  conscious  and  deliberate
effort to effect a negative impact on his  career,  despite  his  duty
performance.  He did not provide  any  documentation  to  substantiate
this allegation.  There are  differences  between  an  AFCM  and  MSM;
however, the recommending official is the  individual  who  makes  the
determination as to the level of decorations to be awarded.   They  do
not believe the supervisor’s  or  commander’s  prerogative  should  be
“second-guessed” in this case, especially in view of the fact that the
applicant has not  provided  any  documentation  to  substantiate  his
allegation against them.  Therefore, they recommend disapproval of the
applicant’s request.

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

The Acting Chief, Promotion,  Evaluation,  and  Recognition  Division,
Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPP, also  reviewed
this application and states that  the  applicant  contends  his  rater
wrote an unfair evaluation  because  the  applicant  had  applied  for
separation  and  recused  himself  from  duties   involving   specific
companies.  The applicant states he applied for separation because  he
had been denied an assignment to SAF/IA, denied a three-month time  on
station waiver, there was limited use for his Polish language  skills,
and the Active Duty Service Commitment Waiver  program  was  expiring.
The member was later selected for the SAF/IA  position  and  requested
withdrawal of his approved DOS.  He believes he was no  longer  viewed
as a loyal and dedicated Air Force officer by his  evaluators.   As  a
result, they consciously downgraded the narrative portion of his  OPR.
The applicant did not provide any evidence to support this contention;
therefore, this is merely unsubstantiated conjecture about the motives
of his evaluators.

The applicant contends the OPR lacks the energy and language  used  to
describe an officer’s performance and provides  him  with  only  faint
praise.  The applicant references his previous OPRs that were  written
by the  same  evaluators  as  an  example  of  emphatically  positive,
descriptive phrases.  A report is not considered unjust because it  is
inconsistent with  other  ratings.   A  report  evaluates  performance
during a specific period and  reflects  the  applicant’s  performance,
conduct, and potential at that time,  in  that  position.   Air  Force
policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when  it
becomes a matter of record.  Only evaluators know what influenced  the
evaluation and the applicant did not provide any evidence to prove the
OPR  is  unfair  or  unjust.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Officer  Promotion  Management,  Directorate  of  Personnel
Program Management, AFPC/DPPPO, also  reviewed  this  application  and
states that they concur with the findings in both the HQ AFPC/DPPP and
HQ AFPC/DPPPR advisories, and have nothing further  to  add  on  those
requests.  Since they both recommend denial,  SSB  is  not  warranted.
Based on the evidence provided, and the recommendations in  the  other
advisories, they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a response to the Air Force evaluations that is
attached at 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.  In this respect we note
the following:

      a.  The applicant contends his Officer Performance Report  (OPR)
rendered for the period 27 September 1997 through 6  June  1998  lacks
the energy and language used to describe an officer's performance  and
provides him with only faint praise.  He references his previous  OPRs
that were written by the same evaluators as an example of emphatically
positive descriptive phrases.  As noted by the Air Force, a report  is
not considered unjust because it is inconsistent with  other  ratings.
A report evaluates performance during a specific period  and  reflects
the applicant’s performance, conduct, and potential at that  time,  in
that position.  We note that  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any
supporting documentation from the  rating  chain  and  has  failed  to
provide  evidence  showing  that  the  report  was  not  an   accurate
assessment as rendered.

       b.   The  applicant  also  contends  that  his  supervisor  and
commander deliberately down graded his  end-of-tour  decoration  in  a
conscious and deliberate effort to effect a  negative  impact  on  his
career, despite his duty performance  and  placed  him  in  an  unfair
competitive position for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.
 The applicant was awarded the AFCM w/2 OLC for the period  3  October
1995 through 6 July  1998.   We  agree  with  the  recommendation  and
opinion from AFPC/DPPPR and adopt  their  rationale  that  it  is  the
recommending  official’s  discretion  to  determine   the   level   of
decoration to be awarded.  In this case, it was the AFCM w/2OLC and we
do not believe the supervisor’s or commander’s prerogative  should  be
“second-guessed.”  The applicant has not provided any documentation to
substantiate his allegations against them.

      c.  The applicant claims that his Officer Selection Brief  (OSB)
did not reflect award of the AFCM w/2OLC before the CY00A board.  It’s
true that the AFCM w/2OLC was not reflected  on  his  OSB  before  the
CY00A Board.  However, a copy of the medal citation was filed  in  his
officer selection record (OSR) before the CY00A Board.  We believe  by
the citation being filed in the applicant’s OSR the Board members were
aware of the fact that the applicant  was  awarded  the  AFCM  w/2OLC.
Moreover, there was a discrepancy letter filed in the OSR,  indicating
the personnel data system (PDS) was not updated to  reflect  the  most
recent AFCM.  This also would have called attention to the  fact  that
there was a medal  awarded  for  that  time  period.   Therefore,  SSB
consideration is not warranted.  Based on the  available  evidence  of
record, we find  no  basis  upon  which  to  favorably  consider  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  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 18 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                  Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 May 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 26 June 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 22 August 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 August 2001.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 August 2001.



                                PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                Panel Chair