RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00702
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Officer Performance  Report (OPR) rendered for the period  2
February 1998 through 1 February 1999 be declared  void  and  replaced
with a reaccomplished report covering the same period.

2.    He be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year  2000
and 2001 Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OPR was based on  his  participation  in  the  Exceptional  Family
Member Program (EFMP) not his performance.   His  OPR  was  downgraded
based on his EFMP case, which violates the intent and  spirit  of  the
Family Advocacy Program (FAP).  His additional rater used the  OPR  in
determining his assignment availability instead of  allowing  AFPC  to
make this determination.  He feels there  was  undue  emphasis  on  an
isolated incident, also the additional rater  abused  the  OPR  review
process by coercing the rater.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered, but not selected, for promotion to the grade
of lieutenant colonel by the calendar  years  (CYs)  2000A  and  2001B
central selection boards.

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the  applicant's  appeal
to have his report substituted.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                   1 Feb 98       MEETS STANDARDS
                  *1 Feb 99       MEETS STANDARDS
                   1 Feb 00       MEETS STANDARDS
                   1 Feb 01       MEETS STANDARDS

*Contested Report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the ERAB denied the applicant's appeal  based  on
no  evidence  of  coercion-evaluators  are   encouraged   to   discuss
disagreements before finalizing a report; also, based on  the  limited
space on the form, it  is  the  responsibility  of  the  evaluator  to
determine what  information  goes  in  the  report;  and  lastly,  his
additional rater provided sufficient rationale as to why a command/ISS
recommendation was not provided.

The applicant alleges the additional rater placed an undue emphasis on
his enrollment in the EFMP and on the  rater.   The  additional  rater
recommended the  applicant  for  a  command  position,  but  when  the
applicant was selected he could not accept the assignment based on his
EFMP enrollment.  The additional rater,  because  of  this  situation,
states, "Knowing he was unable to relocate for an assignment, I  felt,
in good conscience, that I could not recommend him for  an  assignment
that would require relocation, such as command or ISS.

The rater, based on his discussion with the additional rater, did  not
include a command or PME recommendation in Section VI, Rater's Overall
Assessment.    Evaluators   are   encouraged   and   should    discuss
disagreements when preparing reports;  however,  evaluators  will  not
change their evaluation just to appease the evaluator who disagrees.

Although the evaluators  had  sound  rationale  for  not  including  a
command or PME recommendation on the  report,  they  state  they  were
unaware of the  impact  it  would  have  the  applicant's  career  and
promotion potential.  However, a report is  not  erroneous  or  unfair
because it is believed to  have  contributed  to  a  nonselection  for
promotion or may impact future promotion career opportunities.

The applicant contends that the OPR violates the intent and spirit  of
the EFMP; however, the applicant did  not  provide  any  documentation
from  the  EFMP  office  stating  evaluators   are   prohibited   from
considering the applicant's enrollment  in  the  EFMP  when  assessing
performance  or  potential.   Nor,  has  the  applicant  provided  any
documentation from any  official  source  stating  that  he  had  been
discriminated against.

Based on the above information, DPPPE recommends the requested  relief
be denied.

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

HQ AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings of DPPPE and states  that  SSB
consideration is not warranted and they have nothing further  to  add.
Based on the evidence provided,  they  recommend  the  application  be
denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that federal guidelines protect the family member
with special needs against discrimination and  this  would  extend  to
protecting the active duty member against being discriminated  against
because of a family member with special  needs.   Furthermore,  Family
Advocacy's Office works to prevent any stigma  from  being  associated
with any of their programs and their ability to  serve  their  clients
depends on their comfort with enrollment and participation.

In accordance with AFI 36-2401, a Summary of  Investigation  from  the
Inspector General is not required for OPR appeal.

His request for an appeal falls within the guidelines of AFI 36-2401.

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.   Essentially,  the
applicant asserts that, among other things, based upon the  influence
of one isolated incident, the contested OPR  should  be  removed  and
replaced with a reaccomplished report because it did  not  contain  a
recommendation for command and/or  service  school.   However,  after
thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  to   include   the
statements from the rating  chain,  the  Board  is  not  sufficiently
persuaded that the contested report is an  inaccurate  assessment  of
the applicant’s performance during  the  contested  time  period  and
should be removed from his records. While the evidence suggests  that
the additional rater may have used the applicant’s refusal to  accept
an assignment for squadron command as the reason for not recommending
him for command or Intermediate Service School (ISS), the  additional
rater does not indicate that  the  contested  report  is  inaccurate.
Additionally, while it appears that the  additional  rater  may  have
influenced  the  rater  to  the  extent  that  she  did  not  add   a
recommendation for command or ISS, the rater does not  indicate  that
the  report  is  an  inaccurate   assessment   of   the   applicant’s
performance; rather the report  is  inaccurate  by  omission  of  the
recommendation for command or school.  The basis  for  these  actions
apparently was the participation by the applicant in the  Exceptional
Family Member Program (EFMP) which led to  his  refusing  a  squadron
commander’s position.   However,  regardless  of  the  aforementioned
situation, simply because it is perceived  that  a  report  may  have
contributed to an individual’s nonselection for promotion or may have
impacted future promotion opportunities  or  career  progression,  it
doesn’t necessarily make the report erroneous  or  unfair.   In  this
respect, a report is considered to be an accurate  assessment  of  an
officer's performance at the time it is rendered.  On the other hand,
generally, when we consider similar cases, especially in view of  the
statements from the rating chain, we would resolve the benefit of the
doubt in favor of the applicant and  replace  the  contested  report.
However, in the instant case, we note that in addition to adding  the
command and ISS recommendation, the  reaccomplished  report  is  just
that - a reaccomplished report which has been rewritten to strengthen
the comments by both evaluators.   Therefore,  should  the  applicant
provide a reaccomplished report which is a replica  of  the  original
report but with recommendations for command and ISS only, we would be
inclined to review this case for possible reconsideration.  Thus,  in
view of the foregoing, the Board finds no compelling basis upon which
to recommend the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
00702 in Executive Session on July 2, 2002, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Officer Selection Brief.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 24 Apr 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 24 Apr 02
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.
      Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, dated 10 Jun 02.




                       JOSEPH A. ROJ
                       Panel Chair