RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02815
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 25 Feb 01 be replaced  with
a corrected OPR.

2.  Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the  Calendar  Year
2001B (CY01B) colonel selection board be replaced with a corrected PRF.

3.  She be considered for promotion to  the  grade  of  colonel  by  Special
Selection Board for the CY01B board.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR and PRF contained a duty title that was incorrect,  misleading,  and
sent a negative signal to the board members.  A counselor  at  AFPC  advised
her that the duty  title  "Squadron  Section  Commander"  was  reserved  for
junior officers  and  junior  captains  and  did  not  reflect  a  level  of
responsibility for a lieutenant colonel meeting a colonel  board.   Further,
her job descriptions do not include the full  level  of  responsibility  she
held in her position.  Because the U.S. Air Force Academy  (USAFA)  Dean  of
the Faculty is a non-traditional organization, the duty titles  should  have
been more closely tailored to her actual  responsibilities,  authority,  and
span of control.  Her duty title should have been changed when  she  assumed
the responsibilities of the Deputy  for  Operations  after  his  retirement.
The duty title was corrected  on  her  subsequent  OPR.   In  addition,  the
stratification statement (#1 of 90+) on  both  the  OPR  and  PRF,  although
strong, does not  inform  the  board  of  the  number  of  officers  in  the
competitive group.  She was actually number 1  of  10  officers  in-the-zone
(IPZ) and received the number  1  Definitely  Promote  (DP)  recommendation.
The officer receiving the number 2 DP was promoted.

It was noted that the length of time she spent  at  the  USAFA  was  another
major factor  in  her  nonselection  because  it  appeared  as  if  she  was
homesteading even though  she  held  a  number  of  different  jobs.   As  a
sequential Tour Officer, AFPC  assigned  her  to  the  faculty  for  several
sequential tours.  This selectively managed  program  gives  the  USAFA  its
senior military PhD faculty.  The USAFA does not have  a  pool  of  military
officers with PhDs to draw from for its senior  faculty.   Further,  as  the
senior African-American faculty member, with a  PhD,  on  a  faculty  having
less than 3 percent African-Americans,  she  served  as  a  role  model  and
mentor to faculty and cadets.  Thus, her length of time at the USAFA was  in
the best interest of the USAFA and the Air Force and it is an injustice  for
her to be penalized for supporting the USAFA.

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement,  a  copy
of  the  contested  and  corrected  OPRs,  documents  associated  with   her
Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  appeal;  Air  Force   Form   77,
Supplemental Evaluation Sheet;  Air  Force  Form  3994,  Recommendation  for
Decoration, Deployment/Contingency Operations; and,  a  copy  of  an  email.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force  on  6
Jun 80.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 97.  She was considered  and  not
selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY01B Central  Colonel
Selection Board that convened on 3 Dec 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPASA recommends denial of her request.  DPASA states that she was  not
appointed to the section commander  position  through  an  AFPC  competitive
selection board.  There may have been a screening process at the  USAFA  for
her appointment but DPASA has no knowledge of that.  Additionally,  she  was
not advised to remain at the USAFA by AFPC, each  extension  was  a  request
from the USAFA.  She was counseled in 1994 that extended tours at the  USAFA
could potentially impact  her  promotion  and  career  progression  yet  she
elected to continue pursuing assignments  there.   She  signed  a  volunteer
statement  indicating  she  understood  these   implications.    The   DPASA
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial.  DPPP states that although her  rater  supports
changing the duty title on both the OPR and PRF, he does state  "However,  I
felt that a 'Squadron Commander' position would clearly  be  seen  (and  was
described) as a very responsible 0-5/0-6 position, so I did not  change  her
duty title."  Therefore, the request to change her duty title appears to  be
retrospective and based on her nonselection  for  promotion,  not  any  real
error or injustice.  The squadron commander owns both the  mission  and  the
people in their entirety, while the squadron section commander  is  normally
responsible solely for the people.  It  appears  that  the  job  description
provided accurately describes a squadron  section  commander;  no  different
from those found at most  major  commands,  field  operating  agencies,  and
direct reporting units.  AFPC counselors are  not  selection  board  members
and cannot possibly know what the board members  considered  when  reviewing
records.  However, based on years of personnel  experience,  they  can  make
educated guesses and compare the nonselect records with  the  selects.   The
information imparted to individuals not selected  for  promotion  is  merely
the opinion of the individual counselors and not  a  conclusive  reason  for
nonselection.  A report is not erroneous or  unfair  because  the  applicant
believes it contributed to  a  nonselection  for  promotion  or  may  impact
future promotion  or  career  opportunities.   The  DPPP  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings and recommendations of DPASA  and  DPPP
and recommends denial.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The USAFA is a unique installation and not all  assignments  are  filled  as
they  may  be  for  more  traditional  Air  Force  units.   Because  of  the
requirement for certain academic credentials it would  not  be  possible  to
select  Dean  of  Faculty  senior  leaders  through  the  AFPC   competitive
selection board process.  Her selection was through  a  competitive  process
as noted by the Dean's statement on her 25  Feb  99  OPR  which  states,  "I
selected her to be my  Squadron  Section  Commander."   With  regard  to  an
extended tour  impacting  an  officer's  chances  for  promotion,  applicant
states that  this  definitely  applies  to  officers  being  considered  for
promotion to colonel with a "Promote" (P) recommendation.   The  probability
of an officer on an extended tour at the USAFA with a "P" recommendation  is
well below Air Force average.  She had a "DP" recommendation, and  since  no
officer on an extended tour at the USAFA with a "DP" has  ever  been  denied
promotion, she had a reasonable expectation to  believe  the  extended  tour
was not a detriment to her career.

She never asked AFPC for advice regarding remaining  at  the  USAFA  because
advice from  her  chain-of-command  was  sufficient.   Although  AFPC  never
advised her to remain, they never once questioned the requests  for  her  to
stay or indicated that her career field needed her  for  other  assignments.
She returned to the USAFA in 1992 after completing  her  PhD  and  the  1994
request to extend her tour would allow the USAFA to take  advantage  of  the
resources it spent on her  education.   The  1994  AFPC  opinion  was  never
communicated to her, nor is she  aware  of  any  similar  opinion  when  she
extended her tour in 1998.

To her knowledge there were only three non-rated  officers  across  the  Air
Force  with  DP  recommendations  that  were  not  promoted.   It   is   her
understanding that in many of these cases in the past  disciplinary  issues,
negative comments, or having  weak  records  were  involved.   There  is  no
negative conduct or a negative evaluation in her 26-year career.   Her  most
recent evaluation and recent assignment selection confirm  that  her  career
is spotless.  When the DP process was established and publicized  there  was
considerable discussion about the process being  in  place  to  ensure  that
officers  in  unique  organizations  would  not  be   penalized   by   their
association with those units.  Her senior rater and management level  review
(MLR) president recommended her for promotion by giving her a DP.  It  seems
that her association with this unique institution  has  penalized  her  even
though that association was for the good of the  Air  Force.   Her  complete
submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  reaccomplishment   of   the
contested  OPR  and  PRF.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's  complete
submission in judging the merits of the case; however,  we  agree  with  the
comments  and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force   offices   of   primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the  Board  finds  no
compelling basis to recommend that the contested reports be reaccomplished.

4.  The Board also consideration changing only the duty  title  on  the  OPR
and PRF; however the  Board  majority  is  not  persuaded  by  the  evidence
presented that she has substantiated that the duty titles reflected  on  the
OPR and PRF were in error or that the duty titles  negatively  impacted  the
selection board members.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  02-02815  in
Executive Session on 12 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member



The Board recommended  denial  of  the  applicant's  request.   Mr. Gallogly
voted to change the duty titles only because he believed  that  the  rater's
failure to change the duty titles has caused an injustice to the  applicant.
 He did not desire to submit a minority report.  The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated,28 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPASA, dated 15 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 21 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 03.




                                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                             Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2002-02815

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

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of

      I agree with the minority member in that the applicant's request to
change her duty title should be granted.  However, after carefully
considering all of the circumstances of this case, I am persuaded to
exercise my discretionary authority to provide further relief.

      The applicant states that the contested OPR and PRF contain a duty
title that inaccurately portrayed the position she held and her level of
responsibility in that position.  In support of her request, she provided
credible evidence from her rater, senior rater, and Management Level Review
Board President in which they state that her duty title did not accurately
reflect her duties and that they failed to realize the necessity to
formulate her duty title to correspond with her newly acquired
responsibilities.  Having no basis to question the integrity of the rating
chain, who unequivocally supports the applicant's request, reasonable doubt
has been established concerning the accuracy of the contested OPR and the
PRF.  Given the applicant's overall record of superior performance, the
benefit of the doubt should be resolved in her favor.

      At arriving at my decision, I note that the Courts have held that the
Secretary and his Boards have an abiding moral sanction to determine,
insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged error or an injustice
and to take steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.  Accordingly, it is
my decision that the contested PRF and OPR be declared void; that the
revised OPR and PRF be substituted for the ones of record; and that she be
provided reconsideration for promotion to colonel by an SSB.






                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
      Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR BC-2002-02815




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 Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the
period 26 February 2000 through 25 February 2001, be, and hereby is,
declared void and replaced with the attached OPR reflecting in Section VII,
Additional Rater Overall Assessment, first sentence, "My #1 of 80+ Lt
Cols!"

            b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the
Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Colonel Selection Board, be, and hereby
is, declared void and replaced with the attached PRF reflecting in Section
IV, Promotion Recommendation, last sentence, "Red hot for joint pol-mil/WMD
billet--Def Promote, SSS!"

      It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the
grade of colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, to include above corrections, and any
subsequent board in which the replaced OPR was a matter of record.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachments:
1.  OPR
2.  PRF