ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00702
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration,  he  requests  the  Officer
Performance Report (OPR) closing 1  February  1999  be  declared  void  and
replaced with a reaccomplished report and he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for
Calendar Year 2000 and 2001 Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

The applicant filed an appeal with  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) and his appeal was denied.

A similar  appeal was  considered  and  denied  by the  Board   on  2  July
2002.  For an accounting of the facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the
applicant's separation, and, the rationale of the earlier decision  by  the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.

On 13 March 2003, the applicant  submitted  a  request  for  reconsideration
contending that because he  was  participating  in  the  Exceptional  Family
Member Program, he suffered workplace harassment  and  discrimination  which
resulted in his receiving an inaccurate OPR (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  In the Board’s initial
review of the  application,  it  found  insufficient  evidence  that  the
contested  report  was  an  inaccurate  assessment  of  the   applicant’s
performance during the contested time period.  However,  based  upon  the
statements from his rating chain, the Board indicated its willingness  to
reconsider the case provided the applicant submit a reaccomplished report
adding only command and ISS recommendations to the rater  and  additional
rater  comments.   The  applicant  apparently  was  unable  to  obtain  a
reaccomplished report with only these changes, and  has  again  requested
that the Board review the contested report and render a decision that the
report is an inaccurate assessment  of  his  performance  and  should  be
replaced with the reaccomplished report on the basis that the  additional
rater harassed and discriminated against him in the workplace because  he
was enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP).   After  an
exhaustive review of all the documentation submitted, to include  the  e-
mail messages between the report’s rater and reviewer  and  the  original
statements from the rating chain, we are still  not  persuaded  that  the
applicant has established the report is inaccurate and should  be  voided
and replaced.  In the Board’s opinion, the statements  coupled  with  the
reaccomplished report, originally  provided  in  support  of  the  appeal
constitute retrospective  assessments  of  the  applicant’s  performance,
apparently written as after-the-fact attempts to enhance the  applicant’s
promotability.  However, such motivations are not sufficient  to  support
findings that the report itself is erroneous or unjust.  While the  rater
and additional rater are apparently  of  the  opinion  that  the  wording
should be changed on the contested report, neither individual offers  any
specific information concerning  the  applicant’s  performance  that  was
unknown to them at the time the report was  prepared.   In  view  of  the
findings that the contested OPR is  neither  unjust  nor  inaccurate,  we
believe it should stand as written.  We  would  again  suggest  that  the
applicant attempt to  obtain  a  reaccomplished  report  replicating  the
contested  report   but   which   contains   the   command   and   school
recommendations.  In view of the foregoing, applicant’s request  to  have
the contested report voided and replaced with a reaccomplished report and
he be given SSB consideration 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
00702 in Executive Session on 30 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 2 Jul 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Reconsideration Request, dated
                        13 Mar 03, w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair






AFBCMR BC-2002-00702



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction for 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                 , be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 2 February 1998 through 1 February 1999,
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

            b.  The attached reaccomplished Field Grade Officer Performance
Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 February 1998 through
1 February 1999, be accepted for file in its proper sequence.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar
Years 2000 and 2001 Central Lieutenant Colonel Boards and for any
subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 1 February 1999, was a matter
of record.




                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Reaccomplished OPR

                   MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                   FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)


FROM: SAF/MR

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case on

      I have carefully considered the circumstances of this case and do not
agree with the AFBCMR that the applicant’s requests should be denied.

      Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade
of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Years 2000A (CY00A) and 2001B (CY01B)
central selection boards.  In a subsequent application to the Board, he
contended that the OPR closing 1 Feb 99 was downgraded because he was
enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP), which violated
the intent and spirit of the Family Advocacy Program (FAP).  He further
contended that the additional rater used the OPR in determining his
assignment availability and abused the OPR review process by coercing the
rater.  In support of his request, he provided statements from the rater
and additional rater.  The Board considered and denied the appeal, but
informed him that if he provided a reaccomplished report with a
recommendation for command and Intermediate Service School (ISS) only, they
would again review his case.  In the reconsideration request, applicant
advises he was unable to obtain the reaccomplished report but was
submitting his reconsideration request based on additional evidence.  He
stated that due to his participation in the EFMP, he was subjected to
workplace harassment and discrimination, resulting in an inaccurate report.
 In support of his request, the applicant provides e-mail communication
between the rater and the reviewer of the contested report.  The Board
reviewed and again denied the appeal reiterating the belief that the OPR
was an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance.


      The rater indicates that the additional rater had nominated the
applicant for command selection; however, the applicant was unable to
accept this once-in-a-lifetime command opportunity due to the approved EFMP
case.  Shortly thereafter, the contested OPR became due and the sensitivity
of the command issue and the additional rater’s frustration with the
situation unfolded.  The rater indicates that because of the strong
recommendation from the additional rater, she did not include
recommendations for command or ISS; and that this omission was based solely
on the applicant’s inability to accept the assignment due to the EFMP.


      The additional rater advises that since the applicant was unable to
relocate for an assignment, he did not feel he could recommend him for an
assignment that would require relocation, such as command or ISS.  The
context of the contested OPR would have been unknown to a promotion board
and the lack of a recommendation for command or ISS may have overly
influenced their decision.  The reviewer agrees with the changes made to
the report and appreciates the opportunity to correct the situation.


      Given the unequivocal support from the rating chain and having no
basis to question their integrity, equity dictates that the applicant’s
records be corrected as requested.






                                       MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
                                       Assistant Secretary
                                       (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)