RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00865
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the  period  3
May 98 through 20 Apr 99 be voided.

A statement  be  substituted  for  the  OPR  closing  20  Apr  99  that
essentially includes the comments that his assignment was curtailed and
he was reassigned due  to  Exceptional  Family  Member  Program  (EFMP)
circumstances.

He be  considered  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 00A (28  Nov  00)  and
CY01B (5 Nov 01) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR rendered on him closing out 20 Apr 99 sends a clear  signal  to
the Board not to promote him.

The OPR closing 20 Apr 99 was influenced by factors  unrelated  to  his
duty performance.  He believes his rater and additional  rater  made  a
decision to  hold  him  accountable  for  his  children’s  embarrassing
behavior.  He provides a statement of support from a senior officer  in
his previous rating chain that supports and bolsters  his  belief.   He
also provides a statement of support from a Senior NCO that worked  for
him to verify  that  his  duty  performance  did  not  decline  as  the
contested OPR indicates.

He believes that even if  his  OPR  is  voided,  a  statement  must  be
inserted in his records to explain why he did not complete at least two
years as a squadron commander, otherwise,  the  promotion  board  could
make negative inferences.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is    3
Mar 85.  He has two nonselections to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel
(the CY00A and  CY01B  boards).   His  last  ten  OPRs,  including  the
contested report, have  overall  ratings  of  “Meets  Standards.”   The
applicant had a previous appeal denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) because the contested OPR  does  not  mention  any  family
issues, he does not have any support from his rating chain, and he  did
not provide IG  or  Military  Equal  Opportunity  (MEO)  investigations
substantiating his contention.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR
closing 20 Apr 99 and  to  place  a  statement  in  his  records.   The
applicant has not proven the recommendations were withheld due  to  his
family issues or that he was the victim of unfair treatment.  There are
no procedures to include a statement in applicant’s  record  concerning
his curtailment from his assignment due to EFMP involvement.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s  request  for  promotion
consideration by SSB.  Based on  AFPC/DPPPE’s  recommendation  and  the
evidence  submitted  by  the  applicant,  SSB  consideration   is   not
warranted.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant faxed his response to the Air Force evaluations on 26 Jun
02.  He requests that he granted a personal  appearance  to  articulate
his case and answer questions.  He indicates that the evaluation of his
case provided by AFPC/DPPPE simply reiterates that the ERAB denied  his
appeal based on its adherence to AFI 36-2401.

In regards to AFPC/DPPPE’s assessment  that  he  has  not  proven  that
recommendations were withheld from his OPR due to his family issues  or
that he was the victim of unfair treatment, the applicant discusses the
difficulty in clearly proving a case like his.  He asks  the  Board  to
place themselves in his position and asks the rhetorical  question,  if
they experienced his circumstances, could they prove the intent of  the
rater and additional rater at the time.
The applicant reiterates the results of the  conversation  between  his
previous rater and his present rater and the admission by  the  present
rater that the applicant’s OPR  reflected  her  disappointment  in  the
increased amount of time he spent  dealing  with  family  issues.   The
applicant provides information that he believes supports his contention
that his duty performance never  suffered  from  issues  involving  his
family.  He also points to the contrast  in  how  his  performance  was
described in a Promotion Recommendation Form he received just  30  days
prior to the contested OPR as evidence that the incidents involving his
family impacted the report.

Finally, the applicant offers what he believes would be  a  remedy  for
situations with OPRs like  his.   He  believes  that  by  granting  his
appeal, the AFBCMR  would  be  highlighting  the  duty  of  raters  and
additional raters to be consistent on an OPR rendered within a month or
two of a PRF on the same individual.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  primary  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  While the OPR contested buy the applicant may lack
as strong a push for promotion as his  earlier  reports,  we  were  not
persuaded  by  the  evidence  presented  that  it  was  due  to   rater
retaliation.  Therefore, 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 02-00865 in
Executive Session on 19 June 2002  and  on  27  June  2002,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
      Mr. Thomas J, Topolski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, W/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 2 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 May 02.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair