RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-02543
            INDEX CODE 131.09
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) as if  selected
by the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central LTC board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Senior leadership has told  him  many  times  that  chaplains  in  the
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (a conservative  Lutheran  Church)  are
often placed at large bases because of their  perceived  doctrine  and
limitations. He was not given the opportunity to be a senior chaplain,
a senior Protestant chaplain or any other supervisory role because  of
his denomination, which disqualified him for promotion.  From 1989  to
the present he has been given assignments at large  bases  that  don’t
show his talents and skills.  That  is  religious  discrimination  and
should not be tolerated in the Air Force. He contends  the  supporting
letters he provides indicate that this should  not  have  happened  to
him. He indicates that the former Chief of Personnel for the Chief  of
Chaplains confirmed this discrimination.

His 9-page statement, with 9 attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s Officer Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  and
Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs), which are provided at Exhibit  B,  he
was assigned to the 52nd Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem AB, Germany  from
5 Jun 96 to 30 Mar 00.  While there, he served as a chaplain  from  27
Jun 96 to 4 Jun 97, and as a senior Protestant chaplain from 1 Apr  98
to 30 Mar 00.  On 17 Jul 00, he was assigned to the 314th Airlift Wing
at Little Rock AFB, AR,  where  he  is  currently  serving  as  senior
Protestant chaplain in the grade of major (date of rank: 1 Aug 94).

The applicant's performance reports from  16  Aug  82  to  30  Mar  01
reflect either the  highest  potential  rating  or  that  he  met  all
standards.

The applicant was considered but not selected by the CY99A  and  CY00A
LTC selection boards, which convened on  19  Apr  99  and  28 Nov  00,
respectively.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for both boards
reflected a duty title of senior Protestant chaplain and  had  overall
recommendations of "Promote."  He was also afforded SSB  consideration
for the CY99A board following a favorable AFBCMR decision  to  include
an award citation in his records; however, he  was  not  selected  for
promotion.

He was subsequently considered by the CY01B board, which  convened  on
5 Nov 01; however, selection results  from  that  board  are  not  yet
releasable.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAH advised that, as of Jun 97, they use the  same  volunteer
system of electronic preference worksheets that the Line  of  the  Air
Force officers use. They make assignments  to  locations  but  do  not
dictate the duties performed once assigned to the base.  The  decision
to make someone a supervisory chaplain is left up to the wing chaplain
at each base.  According to  their  records,  the  applicant  has  had
several proposed assignments that  have  been  changed  based  on  the
medical needs of his family members. There is nothing in their records
to show that any of his  assignments  have  been  made  based  on  his
religious denomination. However, they support  a  thorough  review  to
determine if there was any possible discrimination based on  religious
denomination.

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

HQ AFPC/DPPPO indicates that direct  promotion  should  be  considered
only in the most extraordinary circumstances where  SSB  consideration
has been deemed to be totally unworkable. The applicant’s case clearly
does not fall into that category. Other than his own opinions, he  has
provided no substantiation to his allegations.  His case clearly  does
not warrant direct promotion or SSB consideration. While HQ  AFPC/DPAH
supports a thorough review of the applicant’s contentions, their  role
is not to substantiate whether discrimination occurred but  rather  to
review the  evidence  provided  and  determine  whether  reports  were
rendered and  processes  were  followed  fairly,  accurately,  and  in
accordance with the applicable instruction. The burden of proof is  on
the
applicant. He has not provided conclusive evidence showing his  record
contained comments and recommendations not rendered in good  faith  by
evaluators based on the knowledge available at  the  time.  Denial  is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends that no error was made with  the  OPRs  or  his
records but rather with the assignment system which did not  give  him
the opportunity to be placed in a supervisory role until a year before
his board.  He alleges that there was  some  assignment  manipulation;
however there will be no records that indicate an assignment was  made
based on religious denominational discrimination. He  agrees  with  HQ
AFPC/DPAH that a thorough review should be done to determine  if  such
discrimination occurred. He notes that HQ AFPC/DPAH advised that  they
use the same volunteer system of electronic preference worksheets that
the Line of Air Force officers use since Jun 97. That change was  made
too late for him; prior to that time he was discriminated against.  He
asks for a direct promotion to LTC.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

The former Chanute Chief of  Personnel  for  the  Chief  of  Chaplains
writes an additional supporting letter, indicating that denominational
rules and liturgical requirements did limit the assignment of  certain
chaplains at small bases. These assignment limitations  did  not  give
chaplains from  certain  denominations  an  opportunity  to  serve  in
supervisory roles either as a senior protestant or a  wing  or  senior
chaplain.  He asks that the  Board  take  this  past  philosophy  into
consideration when reviewing the applicant's case.

The retired chaplain's supporting letter 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 probable error or injustice warranting  promotion  to
the grade of LTC. The  applicant  asserts  that,  as  a  member  of  a
conservative church, he was not assigned to supervisory positions  and
his career progression  and  promotion  opportunities  suffered  as  a
result. This Board is not an investigative  body  and  the  burden  of
proof rests with each applicant. The applicant has  not  convinced  us
that religious bias was the causal effect of his assignments  or  that
the CY99A board undoubtedly would have selected him for LTC even if he
had assumed a supervisory position at an earlier date. According to HQ
AFPC/DPAH, several proposed assignments  were  changed  based  on  the
medical needs of the applicant's family members. The applicant  became
a senior Protestant chaplain more than a year before the  CY99A  board
and his performance reports appear to be  objective  assessments.  The
documents he provides reflect that various feelings of  discrimination
are perceived within the Chaplain Service; however, these  perceptions
appear to be speculative thus  far.  The  Air  Force  is  entitled  to
utilize its members in ways that best serve its needs and the evidence
provided does not substantiate that conservative chaplains in  general
and this applicant in particular did, in fact,  suffer  denominational
discrimination. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary,
we conclude the applicant has not been a victim of either injustice or
error and find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  the  granting  the
relief sought.

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 23 January 2002 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAH, dated 16 Oct 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Nov 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Dec 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Retired Chaplain, dated 1 Jan 02.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair