RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02286
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01;131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  George E. Day

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reassigned as a Medical Group Commander.

The Letter of Evaluation (LOE) rendered on him  prior  to  the  Officer
Performance Report (OPR) closing 26 Mar 98 be voided and  removed  from
his records.

The OPR rendered on him closing 26 Mar 98 be declared void and  removed
from his record.

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him for  the  CY97A
Promotion Selection Board be substituted with a reaccomplished PRF.

He be awarded an appropriate medal for his service at Altus AFB.

He be considered for promotion to colonel by  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) for the CY97A Promotion Selection Board.

He receive any other appropriate legal or equitable relief, to  include
backpay, to which he is entitled.

The Air Force Form 77, dated 2 Feb 93,  be  voided,  removed  from  his
records, and replaced with  the  Commissioned  Officers’  Effectiveness
Report rendered on him for the period 19 Sep 90 through 30  Jun  91  by
the U.S. Coast Guard.

It appears from a rebuttal submitted  by  applicant  that  he  is  also
requesting a direct promotion to colonel.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a six page statement submitted through counsel, applicant  indicates
that he was the victim of an adversarial  relationship  with  the  Wing
Inspector General (IG) at Altus AFB, OK.  The IG  repeatedly  used  his
position to encourage a series of  complaints  against  the  applicant,
which the IG would then confirm.  Applicant claims  that  his  Numbered
Air Force commander advised him that he was being assigned to a problem
job in a dysfunctional hospital that had integrity, accountability, and
fraternization problems.  The hospital was not accredited  and  one  of
the reasons for his assignment was  to  get  the  hospital  accredited,
based on his good work in  getting  hospitals  accredited  at  previous
hospitals.  Unfortunately, he became the  victim  of  complaints  filed
against him and confirmed by the IG, which led to his being  fired  for
taking on and fixing the very problems he had been  sent  to  Altus  to
fix.

Applicant provides details  of  his  performance  and  achievements  at
assignments prior to and after his assignment to Altus AFB to show that
the accusations against him at Altus fit his  pattern  of  demonstrated
performance.  Applicant  also  provides  a  copy  of  the  rebuttal  he
submitted to the Wing Commander  after  he  was  fired.   The  rebuttal
covers the lack of officership at Altus, rebellious medical  personnel,
gross failures to follow regulations and published medical  procedures,
cover-up of malpractice, lack of certification  of  medical  personnel,
etc.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date  is
5 Mar 89.  The applicant’s last ten OPRs indicate  overall  ratings  of
“meets standards.”  The applicant did  not  file  an  appeal  with  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to void the OPR closing  26  Mar
98 he requests in this application.  The applicant did file  an  appeal
with the ERAB in 1999 to place the Commissioned Officers’ Effectiveness
Report rendered on him for the period     19 Sep 90 through 30  Jun  91
by the U.S. Coast Guard in his records.  His appeal was denied  due  to
the copy of the report he provided not being signed by a reviewer.  The
applicant has four nonselections to the grade of colonel by  the  CY98A
(9 Nov 98), CY99A (8 Nov 99), CY00A (6 Nov 00), and CY01A (22 Oct 01).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request   for   a
decoration.

Applicant did not provide any official  documentation  stating  he  was
unjustly relieved of  his  command  at  Altus  AFB,  OK.   It  was  his
commander’s responsibility to decide whether or not  to  recommend  him
for a decoration.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request  for  promotion
consideration by SSB.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his  OPR
closing 26 Mar 98.  They also note that the  LOE  the  applicant  wants
removed is not a matter of record.

The OPR being appealed does not mention  the  applicant  being  removed
from command or contain any  negative  information.   Additionally,  he
requests to have a substituted PRF, but did not  provide  a  substitute
for the board to consider.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  responded  to  all  three  evaluations.   He  addresses
AFPC/DPPPR’s  statement  that  he  did   not   provide   any   official
documentation concerning being relieved of command and that it  is  the
commander’s responsibility to recommend  a  decoration.   He  indicates
that there is no documentation concerning the reason  he  was  relieved
from command.  The fact that there is no  documentation  of  wrongdoing
substantiates the unjust nature of his being  relieved  without  cause.
Subsequently, if he did no wrong and simultaneously held the equivalent
of three  full  time  positions,  he  deserves  the  recognition  of  a
decoration upon his reassignment.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  a
commander leaving a command position is decorated for his work,  unless
he  is  relieved  for  cause  during  his  command.   Not  receiving  a
decoration  has  placed  a  significant  cloud  upon   his   subsequent
assignments  and  has  unjustly  limited  his  assignments  and  career
potential.

The applicant indicates that there are multiple issues in  his  appeal.
The first is his request to have his final report for the period 19 Sep
90 through 30 Jun 91  from  the  U.S.  Public  Health  Service  (USPHS)
included in his records.  He indicates that he has forwarded copies  he
obtained from USPHS for inclusion in his records,  but  was  told  that
only originals are accepted.  He states  that  he  has  never  had  the
original report as it was sent directly to the Air  Force.   He  states
that at the time of his first  nonselect,  there  was  an  AF  Form  77
regarding the missing report that  stated  “Not  rated  for  the  above
period.  Report is not available  for  administrative  reasons.”   This
statement  and  the  missing  report  imply  that  there  is   negative
information from his time in  the  Coast  Guard,  which  is  not  true.
Multiple commanders and AFPC career counselors that reviewed his record
have stated that the  missing  report  is  the  only  reason  they  can
attribute his being noncompetitive for promotion to.  The  AF  Form  77
statement and the missing report have caused irreparable damage to  his
reputation and career advancement.

Regarding the issue that he did not submit a substantiated IG complaint
concerning his removal from command, he indicates that this appeal is a
request to correct a wrong.  He states that when he refused  a  request
from the Wing IG to falsify a statement, the IG made  a  direct  threat
that he would learn to fear him, and that when he saw things not  going
his way, remember what he told him.  He claims that the IG also  asked,
“When a six  foot,  two  hundred  pound  black  man  tells  you  to  do
something, aren’t you the least intimidated?”  When  he  complained  to
the Wing Commander and an HQ AETC IG investigated, he was told that  it
was  only  a  “misunderstanding.”   He  contends  that  it  was  not  a
misunderstanding and that this type of language should  never  be  used
under any circumstances by an officer and absolutely never by an IG.

Regarding the recommendation to deny him an SSB, he contends  that  the
AF Form 77 statement and  the  omission  of  his  Commissioned  Officer
Effectiveness Report for the period 19 Sep 90 through     30 Jun 91 set
the  stage  for  his  non-select  to  0-6  even  after  being  given  a
“Definitely Promote” recommendation.

Since being relieved of command, he has had  his  leadership  abilities
recognized at each subsequent assignment.   The  applicant  provides  a
brief summary of his achievements and the increase in responsibility he
has gained at each assignment.

The complete evaluation is 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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  did
not find the  evidence  he  presented  persuasive  in  regards  to  the
allegations he makes.  Unfortunately, the IG Report  he  references  as
having confirmed his  complaint  against  his  Wing  IG  is  no  longer
available.  While  we  note  the  statements  he  provided  documenting
supposed negative encounters others had with the IG,  this  alone  does
not validate his allegations.  We further note that he does not provide
any supporting statements from his former chain of  command.   Finally,
we also agree with the recommendations and opinions  contained  in  the
evaluations prepared by the Air Force
offices of primary responsibility.  Therefore, based on the presumption
of regularity in the conduct of government  affairs  and  the  lack  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 Docket Number 01-02286 in
Executive Session on 24 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Smith, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 21 Feb 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 May 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 May 02.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 25 Jun 02.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair