RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00614

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The result of the  United  States  Air  Forces  in  Europe,  Inspector
General (USAFE/IG) investigation conducted on him from  26 May  to  28  June
2000 be expunged from his records.

2.    The satisfactory rating for the XXXX Air  Base  Squadron  Chaplain  in
the May 2000 USAFE  Functional  Inspection  be  upgraded  to  excellent  and
remove the major finding.

3.    The Officer Performance Report  (OPR),  rendered  for  the  period  22
December 1999 through 30 June 2000, be rewritten  to  include  an  excellent
Functional Rating and strong promotion statements, or  in  the  alternative,
be removed from his records.

4.    The Letter of Admonishment  (LOA)  administered  on  6  July  2000  be
expunged from his records.

5.    The Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF)  prepared  for  the  Calendar
Year 2000A Lieutenant Colonel  Selection  Board  (P0500A)  be  rewritten  to
accurately reflect his service.

6.    The Third Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM,
3 OLC) awarded on 20 February 2001, be upgraded  to  a  Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM).

7.    His corrected record be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the  P0500A  board
and if not selected, his record be considered  by  an  SSB  for  the  P0501B
board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The USAFE/IG violated AFI 90-301 during  its  investigation  of  him;  thus,
eliminating all opportunity he had for promotion, and  ending  his  military
career prematurely.



The  applicant  states  that  it  was  inappropriate  for  the  USAFE/IG  to
investigate a Military Equal  Opportunity  (MEO)  based  allegation.   As  a
result of the investigation, his commander  took  wrongful  adverse  actions
against him, which included an LOA and a referral OPR that  lacked  positive
stratification remarks and a recommendation  for  in-residence  Professional
Military  Education  (PME).   Furthermore,   during   a   USAFE   Functional
Inspection  of  the  XXXXX  ABS,  he  received  a  major  write-up  for  not
implementing  a  comprehensive  Chaplain  service  program  that   met   the
spiritual and moral needs of all assigned personnel.  He received the write-
up because  he  was  accused  of  sexual  discrimination,  not  because  the
accusation was substantiated.  The IG felt that he deserved the major write-
up because he admitted to using the term,  “Bitches  of  Contracting.”   Had
his case been turned over to MEO, he  would  not  have  received  the  major
write-up  or  the  satisfactory  rating.   Furthermore,  IG  complaints  not
reported within 60 days will normally be dismissed  unless  the  complainant
is able to demonstrate he/she was unable to meet the time  requirements  due
to unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances and such circumstances  justify
the delay.  The complaint against him was made at least 300 days  after  the
alleged incident.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The USAFE/IG advised the installation commander on 6 June 2000, that  an  IG
investigation  substantiated  allegations  of  unprofessional  behavior  and
disparaging terms and comments by the applicant.

On  6  July  2000,  he  received  an  LOA  from  his  commander  for  making
disparaging, gender-based comments that violated MEO policy.

On 18 August 2000, the installation commander referred the OPR,  closing  30
June 2000, to the applicant.   The  commander  indicated  that  Section  VI,
Rater Overall  Assessment,  lines  2-3,  of  the  OPR  contained  derogatory
information that made the  report  a  referral  and  was  a  result  of  the
substantiated  discrimination  allegations  identified   in   the   USAFE/IG
investigation.  After considering the applicant’s  rebuttal,  the  commander
reworded the two lines in question and signed the report on 18 August 2000.

He requested redress of the LOA on 28 August  2000,  and  after  considering
his request, the commander elected to maintain the  LOA.   He  again  sought
redress of the LOA on 21 September  2000;  however,  after  considering  his
submission, on 3 October 2000, the installation  commander  found  that  the
additional information provided did not change  his  substantive  evaluation
of the facts in the case and disapproved his request.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel by the P0500A Board that convened on 28 November 2000.

He filed a complaint with the Secretary of the  Air  Force,  Office  of  the
Inspector  General  (SAF/IG),  on  7  December   2000,   alleging   unlawful
discrimination against  him  and  the  improper  release  of  details  of  a
USAFE/IG investigation to functional inspectors grading the  XXXX  Air  Base
Squadron Chaplain Services program.  The SAF/IG completed its  investigation
and determined the following:

      a.    His allegation that the USAFE/IG improperly directed a  Category
I Inspector General investigation into an MEO complaint in violation of  AFI
90-301,  Inspector  General  Complaints  and  AFI  36-2706,  Military  Equal
Opportunity and Treatment Program, was substantiated.

      b.    His allegations that  the  USAFE/IGX  and  USAFE/IGQ  improperly
released information regarding a complaint made  to  the  USAF/IG  were  not
substantiated.

On 20 February 2001, he  was  awarded  the  AFCM,  3  OLC,  for  meritorious
service during the period 28 January 1997 to 7 July 2000.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel by the P0501B Board that convened on 5 November 2001.

Examiner’s Note:

In a letter, dated 23 April 2002, SAF/IGQ  indicated  that,  “In  accordance
with Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records  Decision,  0200614,
dated 13  Mar  02,  the  Air  Force  Inspector  General’s  office  completed
expunging the IG record of the May/June 2000 investigation  concerning  [the
applicant].”  However, the AFBCMR had  never  rendered  a  decision  on  the
applicant’s request to expunge the USAFE/IG investigation.  It  appears  the
request for a copy of the report was interpreted as a Board decision.

Applicant’s performance profile, since 1993, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING                 OVERALL EVALUATION

          9 Jun 93                  Meets Standards (MS)
         24 Dec 93                           MS
         24 Dec 94                           MS
         31 Jul 95                           MS
         31 Jul 96                           MS
         21 Dec 96                           MS
         21 Dec 97                           MS
         21 Dec 98                           MS
       # 21 Dec 99                           MS
       * 30 Jun 00                           MS
      ## 22 May 01                           MS

* Contested report.

# Top report reviewed by the P0500A Board.

## Top report reviewed by the P0501A Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends  the  applicant’s  request  to  rewrite  or  void  the
contested OPR be denied.  AFPC/DPPPE states,  in  part,  that  there  is  no
requirement for rating chains to mandate inclusion  of  PME  recommendations
or  stratifications  into  OPRs.   The  applicant  has  failed  to   provide
substantiated evidence to support his contention that bias played a role  in
the rating chain’s ability to complete a fair  and  accurate  assessment  of
his performance.  The SAF/IG confirms that the  USAFE/IG  did  overstep  its
bounds in investigating an MEO-based allegation; however, the  rating  chain
appears to have simply assessed the offense committed by the applicant  when
rating his overall performance during the reporting period.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPP  recommends  denial   of   the   applicant’s   requests   that   a
reaccomplished PRF be considered by an SSB for the P0500A Board.   AFPC/DPPP
states,  in  part,  that  in  accordance  with  the  governing   Air   Force
Instruction (AFI), changing Section IV of the PRF requires  the  concurrence
of both the senior rater and MLR president.  He did not provide  a  new  PRF
or any supporting documentation that  he  initiated  any  contact  with  his
senior rater and/or MLR president.

The AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  request  to  upgrade  his
AFCM, 3 OLC, to an MSM.  AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that  completion  of  a
tour is not a reason to award a decoration  and  all  related  facts  of  an
individual’s service must be considered.  Furthermore, a decoration  is  not
to be awarded if an individual’s  entire  service  for  the  period  is  not
considered honorable.  The  applicant  requested  reconsideration  from  the
final approval authority, but his request was denied, as  the  basic  charge
of calling three civilian women a derogatory term was substantiated.   Since
he did use a derogatory term, his failure to observe Equal  Opportunity  and
Treatment (EOT) policy, especially since he was a chaplain, could  have  had
far worse consequences.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.



AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of his request to rewrite  the  contested  OPR.
AFPC/DPPPE states, in part, that there is no requirement for  rating  chains
to   mandate   inclusion   of   Professional   Military   Education    (PME)
recommendations or stratifications into OPRs.  The applicant has  failed  to
substantiate his contention that bias played a role in  the  rating  chain’s
ability to complete a fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  his  performance.
Even if the rating chain did  consider  the  incident  investigated  by  the
USAFE/IG, he admitted to committing the offense; thus, it  would  be  within
their purview to consider it when assessing  his  performance.   The  SAF/IG
has confirmed that the USAFE/IG did overstep its bounds in investigating  an
MEO-based allegation; however,  the  rating  chain  did  not  refer  to  the
investigation, nor did it mention the findings  within  the  contested  OPR.
The rating chain appears to have simply assessed the  offense  he  committed
when rating his overall performance during the reporting period.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends approval of the applicant’s  request  to  include  his
rewritten OPR, closing 30 June 2000; however, they find no basis to  warrant
SSB consideration at this time unless he  requests  SSB  consideration  with
the OPR, as it presently reads, in his P0500A OSR.   AFPC/DPPPO  states,  in
part, that they agree that the report was not in his record when it met  the
P0500A board and should have been.  In this respect, AFPC/DPPPO states  that
in accordance with the governing Air Force  Instruction,  OPRs  on  Extended
Active Duty (EAD) officers are  due  to  HQ  AFPC  no  later  than  60  days
following closeout of the  report.   Since  this  is  the  same  OPR  he  is
contending to have rewritten again, or voided,  they  assume  that  at  this
time he is not requesting SSB consideration based  on  the  absence  of  the
report from his P0500A OSR.  However, if he should  do  so,  they  recommend
SSB consideration with the OPR in his OSR as it presently reads.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant states that in a letter, dated  23  April  2002,  the  SAF/IGQ
indicated that the Air Force Inspector General’s office completed  expunging
the IG record of the  May/June  2000  investigation  concerning  allegations
against him.  As such, this means that there was  no  investigation  against
him and no substantiated investigation against him.   If  his  rating  chain
used the findings  of  the  now  expunged  investigation  against  him,  his
records must be corrected and set before  an  SSB.   He  never  admitted  to
committing the offense.  The injustice done to him by  the  USAFE/IG  cannot
be corrected  simply  by  expunging  the  investigation  in  question.   All
records pertaining to, and affected by, the expunged investigation  must  be
corrected as well.  Concerning his request to upgrade the AFCM, 3  OLC,  the
final approval authority cannot deny his request  as  the  basic  charge  of
calling three civilian women a derogatory term  was  substantiated,  because
an  investigation  was  never   conducted.    Furthermore,   there   is   no
substantiated EOT finding against him.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or  injustice  to  warrant  voiding  the  contested  OPR,
upgrading the satisfactory rating for the XXXX Air  Base  Squadron  Chaplain
in the May 2000 USAFE Functional Inspection to excellent, and providing  the
applicant promotion consideration by an SSB for the P0501B Board.  Based  on
allegations that he made disparaging, gender-based  comments  that  violated
MEO policy, the USAFE/IG conducted  an  investigation,  which  substantiated
allegations  of  his  unprofessional  behavior  and  disparaging  terms  and
comments.  However, the SAF/IG found that the USAFE/IG  improperly  directed
the investigation in violation of AFI 90-301, Inspector General  Complaints,
and AFI 36-2706, Military Equal  Opportunity  and  Treatment  Program.   The
applicant has requested that the results of the  USAFE/IG  investigation  be
expunged from his records; however, since the  SAF/IGQ  has  indicated  they
have already expunged the IG record  of  the  USAFE/IG  investigation,  this
request is moot.  In their letter of 23 April 2002,  the  SAF/IGQ  indicated
that, “In accordance  with  Air  Force  Board  for  Correction  of  Military
Records Decision,  0200614,  dated  13  Mar  02,  the  Air  Force  Inspector
General’s office completed expunging the IG  record  of  the  May/June  2000
investigation concerning [the applicant].”  However, the  AFBCMR  has  never
rendered  a  decision   on   this   request.    Regardless,   the   USAFE/IG
investigation has been expunged from his records and as such, we  find  that
any adverse actions as a result of  the  improper  investigation,  i.e.,XXXX
Air Base Squadron Chaplain in the  May  2000  USAFE  Functional  Inspection,
require corrective action.  In this regard, we note that two days after  the
USAFE/IG investigation was completed, he  received  the  contested  referral
OPR containing the bullet statement, “Failed to set the  example  and  fully
comply with  Equal  Opportunity  and  Treatment  (EOT)  policy  --  he  made
comments inconsistent with established EOT policies, adversely  impacted  an
otherwise rock-solid ministry.”  In addition,  he  received  a  satisfactory
rating during the May 2000 USAFE Functional Inspection,  which  contained  a
major write-up.  The applicant contends this  was  due  to  the  allegations
against him.  In support of this contention, he submits a  draft  report  of
the inspection, in which the write-up did not  appear  but  the  rating  had
already been reflected as “Satisfactory.”   In  view  of  this,  we  believe
sufficient evidence  has  been  presented  to  indicate  that  the  improper
USAFE/IG investigation may  have  tainted  the  May  2000  USAFE  Functional
Inspection.  The applicant has requested the contested OPR be  rewritten  to
include an excellent Functional Rating, strong promotion statements, and in-
residence PME recommendations, or in the alternative,  that  it  be  removed
from his records.  However, he has not provided  a  reaccomplished  OPR,  or
statements from the rating officials indicating they  would  be  willing  to
reaccomplish the report.  Therefore,  we  recommend  the  contested  OPR  be
removed from his records, the satisfactory rating  for  the  XXXX  Air  Base
Squadron Chaplain in the May 2000 USAFE Functional  Inspection  be  upgraded
to excellent, and he be considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel by an SSB for the P0501B board.  Since the contested OPR was not  in
his records at the time the P0500A board  convened,  we  find  no  basis  to
recommend SSB consideration for this board.

4.  A majority of the  Board  found  sufficient  evidence  of  an  error  or
injustice to warrant expunging the LOA administered on  6  July  2000,  from
his records.  In this respect,  a  majority  of  the  Board  notes  that  he
received the LOA eight days after the USAFE/IG investigation  was  completed
and almost a year after the incident for which he was  admonished  occurred.
Although the LOA does not directly reference the USAFE/IG investigation,  in
view of the timing of the LOA and since it contains comments  regarding  his
disparaging gender-based comments in violation of MEO  policy,  constituting
unlawful discrimination, a majority of the Board finds it  readily  apparent
that it was based on the allegations  precipitating  the  improper  USAFE/IG
investigation.  Therefore, a majority  of  the  Board  recommends  the  LOA,
dated 6 July 2000, be removed from his records.

5.  Notwithstanding the above, we find no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable consideration of his request to have  the  PRF  prepared  for  the
P0500A Board rewritten and  the  AFCM,  3  OLC,  upgraded  to  an  MSM.   In
accordance with the governing AFI, the concurrence of both the senior  rater
and MLR president are required prior to changing Section IV of the PRF.   He
provides no such evidence,  and  has  not  provided  a  reaccomplished  PRF.
Concerning his request to  upgrade  the  AFCM,  3  OLC,  we  note  that  the
approval authority denied his initial request  to  have  the  AFCM,  3  OLC,
upgraded because the substantiated IG  complaint  could  not  be  dismissed.
However,  after  the  SAF/IGQ  determined  the  USAFE/IG  investigation  was
improper,  the  applicant  provided  the  approval   authority   with   this
information and he determined the decoration should not be  changed  because
the  facts  of  the  incident  did  not  change  despite  the  process  flaw
highlighted in the IG report.  The approval  authority  determined  that  he
had to balance the applicant’s entire performance with all the rest  of  the
wing’s personnel to be fair in the  larger  picture.   While  the  applicant
contends that he never admitted to the offense of  making  sexual  harassing
comments, he  does  admit  to  using  the  term  “bitches  of  contracting.”
Contrary to the applicant’s belief, the expunging of the  improper  USAFE/IG
investigation from his records does not negate the fact  that  he  made  the
improper comments.  In view of this, we are not persuaded that the  decision
to award him an AFCM, 3 OLC, rather than an MSM,  was  improperly  based  on
the USAFE/IG investigation, and believe that it  should  not  be  disturbed.
Therefore, we find the applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  that  he
has suffered either an error or an injustice to warrant upgrading the  AFCM,
3 OLC, to an MSM, and rewriting the PRF prepared for the P0500A board.

6.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.    The 15-22 May 2000 Addendum  to  the  XXX  Air  Refueling  Wing,
United  States  Air  Forces  in  Europe  (USAFE),   Functional   Inspection,
conducted 3-24 November  1999,  be  amended  in  paragraph  1.8.5,  Chaplain
Services, to reflect an excellent rating for the  426th  Air  Base  Squadron
Chaplain and deleting the comments under the section entitled “Area  Needing
Improvement.”

      b.    The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form  707A,
rendered for the period 22 December 1999 through 30 June 2000,  be  declared
void and removed from his records.

      c.    The  Letter  of  Admonishment  (LOA),  dated  6  July  2000,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that his record be  considered  for  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________





The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2002-00614
in Executive Session on 22 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

All members voted to  void  the  contested  OPR,  upgrade  the  satisfactory
rating for the XXXXX Air Base  Squadron  Chaplain  in  the  May  2000  USAFE
Functional Inspection to excellent,  and  provide  the  applicant  promotion
consideration by an SSB for the P0501B Board.  By majority vote,  the  Board
voted to void the Letter of Admonishment.  Ms. Reynolds voted to  deny  this
portion of the applicant’s request but does not wish to  submit  a  minority
report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSF, dated 6 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 8 Jul 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 17 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 Nov 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 Dec 02.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jan 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Jan 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2002-00614




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.    The 15-22 May 2000 Addendum to the XXXXX Air Refueling Wing,
United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), Functional Inspection,
conducted 3-24 November 1999, be, and hereby is, amended in paragraph
1.8.5, Chaplain Services, to reflect an excellent rating for the XXXXX Air
Base Squadron Chaplain and deleting the comments under the section entitled
“Area Needing Improvement.”

      b.    The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A,
rendered for the period 22 December 1999 through 30 June 2000, be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      c.    The Letter of Admonishment (LOA), dated 6 July 2000, be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that his record be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the
Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.









JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency