RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01684
                                        INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE
    
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs)  with  closeout  dates  of  8 March
1981 and 20 October 1981 be voided.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He spoke with his indorser regarding his rating on his 8 March 1981 OER  and
was told that because he was not a member of the Officer’s  Club,  he  could
not meet  his  minimum  standard  of  judgment  and  decisions,  leadership,
professional qualities and overall performance.  His  indorser  stated  that
if he were to join the Officer’s Club that day, he  would  reaccomplish  his
OER and concur with the rater’s evaluation and comments.

He explained  his  objection  for  membership  was  based  on  his  personal
convictions and experience.  As a Christian whose conscience and  life  with
an alcoholic father led him to refuse to drink alcoholic beverages,  and  he
also believed it to be morally wrong to subsidize the abuse  of  alcohol  by
others.  His indorser insisted that Officer’s Club  membership  was  a  non-
negotiable essential in order to receive his  favorable  evaluation  on  his
OER.  In addition, his indorser made it clear that this was the only  reason
for his nonconcurrence with his rater.

At the time of the contested reports, he began the procedure for appeal  but
had already made plans to separate from the Air Force and never intended  to
return.  However, he returned to active duty on 7 March 1998 as  a  chaplain
and now finds that  these  two  OERs  have  and  will  continue  to  have  a
deleterious effect on his opportunities to serve the Air Force.

In support of his  appeal,  applicant  provides  a  personal  statement  and
letters of support including a statement from the rater of  the  March  1981
report.  The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reveals that the applicant  is
a Reserve officer and a member of the Chaplain  Corps  who  was  voluntarily
ordered to extended active duty in the Air Force in the  grade  of  captain,
effective 7 April 1998.  Based on  prior  commissioned  service,  he  has  a
total federal commissioned service date of  12  January  1986  and  a  total
active federal military service date of 7 April 1993.

The following is a resume of the applicant's OERs  and  Officer  Performance
Reports subsequent to his promotion to the grade of first lieutenant.

            PERIOD ENDING         EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

              30 Sep 79                    1-1-1
              31 Mar 80                    1-1-1
              08 Sep 80                    1-1-1
            * 08 Mar 81                    1-X-2
            * 20 Oct 81 (Capt)             1-X-2
              06 Apr 98                  AF Form 77
                                    (No Report Required)
              05 May 98              Training Report
              26 Feb 99              Training Report
              06 Apr 99             Meets Standards (MS)
              06 Apr 00                      MS
              06 Apr 01                      MS

*Denotes contested reports.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPPPEP  states  that
raters  and  indorsers  have  the  right  to  determine  their   indorsement
standards.   Without  conclusive  evidence,  the  ERAB  did  not  feel   the
allegations were substantiated.  Also, if the applicant felt the policy  was
discriminatory, the Equal Opportunity and Treatment office or the  Inspector
General at that time would have provided an  avenue  to  formally  challenge
the questioned policy.   Instead  the  applicant  has  waited  20  years  to
challenge the reports for which there is no  documentation  to  substantiate
his claims.  DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded that he did not  appeal  his  OERs  since  he  never
intended to return  to  active  duty.   His  contention  that  the  indorser
lowered his ratings because he was not a member of  the  Officer’s  Club  is
not speculation.  Having returned to  active  duty  as  a  chaplain,  he  is
concerned that the contested OERs will limit his  opportunities.   He  feels
that this limitation, resulting from prejudicial treatment experienced  more
than 20 years ago following a decision of conscience, would  be  tragic  and
regrettable.

The applicant’s letter is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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,  the  Board
majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale as the  basis  for  the
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  We note the applicant’s contention  that  at  the  time  of  the
contested reports, he began the procedure for an appeal but did  not  pursue
this route since he was separating shortly thereafter and did not intend  to
return to active duty.  We also note that this appeal  is  filed  twenty-one
years after the closeout date  of  the  last  report.   The  Board  majority
believes that his delay in filing his appeal has definitely had  an  adverse
effect on the service’s abilities to defend the actions taken in 1981.   The
comments by the rater of one of the contested reports were reviewed.   While
this individual disagreed and continues to disagree  with  the  decision  of
the indorser and has made some general statements concerning the  indorser’s
sentiments regarding the Officer’s Club, he  does  not  unequivocally  state
that this was the sole reason for the indorser’s ratings and comments.   The
board majority notes that each evaluator is required  to  assess  a  ratee’s
performance honestly and to the best of their ability.   It  appears  to  us
that this is just what occurred in this case.  We do not find the  statement
of the rater provides adequate support for the  applicant’s  contentions  to
warrant a finding that  the  assessments  by  the  indorser  were  based  on
factors other than the  applicant’s  duty  performance.   As  to  the  other
supportive statements, while laudatory of the applicant,  the  authors  were
not charged with evaluating the applicant’s duty  performance  at  the  time
the  contested  reports  were  prepared.   Therefore,  in  the  absence   of
persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  or  showing  that  the  reports  were
technically  flawed,  we  are  unable  to  conclude  that  the  reports  are
erroneous or unjust.  Accordingly, the Board majority  finds  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 23 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr, Panel Chair
           Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
           Mr. James E. Short, Member

Mr. Russell and Mr. Short voted to deny the request.  Mr.  Hinton  voted  to
grant,  but  elected  not  to  submit  a  minority  report.   The  following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number
02-01684 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jul 02, w/atch.





                                   ROSCOE HINTON JR
                                   Panel Chair