RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-02859
            INDEX CODE 111.01 111.03 111.05  131.01
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 May 02 be voided  from
his records, the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed  by  the
Calendar  Year  2001B  (CY01B)  Lieutenant  Colonel  (LTC)  Board   be
rewritten to reflect the same top and bottom lines as the  CY00A  PRF,
and he be given Special Selection Board (SSB)  consideration  for  the
CY01B and CY02B selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The recommendations for squadron  command  and  professional  military
education (PME) were blatantly omitted in retaliation for his  writing
to the Inspector General (IG) and his Congressional representative. In
his previous OPRs, the  recommendations  were  present.  If  he  could
receive the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), the  contested  documents
should  also  reflect  his  outstanding  performance.  He  believes  a
combination  of  two  commanders’  biased  leadership,  power   plays,
inconsistencies,  politicking  and  bad  timing  contributed  to   his
nonselection to LTC.

The applicant’s complete submission, with supporting statements from a
co-worker and subordinate as well as other attachments, is at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major (date of rank 1 Jun 98). During the period in question,
he was the diagnostics and therapeutics flight commander at the  305th
Medical Support Squadron at McGuire AFB, NJ.

He was considered but not selected for promotion to LTC by  the  CY00A
(28 Nov 00), CY01B (5 Nov 01) and CY02B (12 Nov 02) LTC boards. All of
the PRFs had overall recommendations of “Promote”  and  contained  PME
and command/assignment recommendations. An OPR profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

       1 Jul 98        Meets Standards (PME comments)
       1 Jul 99        Meets Standards (Command comments)
      30 May 00        Meets Standards (PME/command comments)*
      30 May 01        Meets Standards (PME/command comments)**
      30 May 02        Meets Standards (No PME/command comments)***

*     Top report for CY00A selection board
**    Top report for CY01B selection board
***   Contested/Top report for CY02B selection board

According  to  documents  provided  by  the  applicant,  he  submitted
Congressional Inquiries on 9 and  27  Feb  02.  He  also  submitted  a
complaint (AF Form 102) to the IG at McGuire on 21 Feb 02.  On  13 Mar
02, the IG advised the applicant his allegations were not  within  the
purview of the IG complaint system.  He was advised of the OPR  appeal
process and informed that he should contact them if  he  felt  he  was
reprised against for communicating with the  IG.  On  18 Apr  02,  his
Congressional  representative  was  advised  of  the  appeal   process
available to the applicant for contesting an OPR and/or PRF.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE contends the applicant has made numerous unsubstantiated
allegations  based  on  his  perceptions.  Neither  the  IG  nor   the
Congressional Inquiry was able to validate his complaints under  their
purview. The applicant gave little explanation as to why  he  did  not
follow through with the suggestions he was given on how to address his
OPR and PRF concerns. In short, he  declined  to  take  the  necessary
steps to validate his allegations.  In accordance with  the  governing
directive, it is inappropriate for  evaluators  to  consider  previous
reports or ratings or a recommendation for decoration.   There  should
be no correlation  between  current  reporting  periods  and  previous
reporting periods.  Additionally, there is absolutely  no  requirement
for rating chains to include PME or command comments into any OPRs  or
PRFs. The applicant has failed to validate his numerous convoluted and
unsubstantiated allegations towards his  rating  chain.   He  provided
letters of support from  others  outside  the  current  rating  chain,
previous OPRs and PRFs, and numerous unrelated stories of others,  all
of which have little or no relativity within the reporting period  and
the PRF and OPR in question. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts that while there is no  requirement  for  rating
chains to include PME or command comments, absence of  these  comments
was intentionally made to exclude him from promotion. He contends that
given his achievements, absence of  these  recommendations  is  highly
suspect. His claims and reasons are not convoluted.  Where  else  will
his complaint go when the people involved in  his  complaint  are  his
immediate bosses, the cause of the problem in the first place? He  was
short-changed by his two commanders and there was no  other  grievance
that is effective except outside his chain of command. He  provides  a
copy of his [CY02B] PRF to contrast with the contested documents.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant should  be
afforded SSB consideration for promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by either the CY01B or CY02B selection boards. The applicant’s
contentions  are  duty  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  contentions,  in  and  by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.  The
applicant appears to be essentially  contending  that  his  rater  and
additional rater were ethnically biased against him and this led to  a
weaker write-up on the PRF prepared for the CY01B selection board than
on the PRF prepared for the  CY00A  board,  his  in-the-promotion-zone
board to lieutenant colonel. Further, he believes  this  alleged  bias
against him caused the rater and additional  rater  to  omit  PME  and
command recommendations on the contested OPR, which was the top report
at the time he was considered and not selected for  promotion  by  the
CY02B selection board, his first  above-the-promotion-zone  board.  We
note  the  contested   PRF   contained   both   PME   and   assignment
recommendations, and we find no support from either the  senior  rater
or the Management Level Review board president to change  the  wording
on this PRF.   Regarding  the  OPR  issue,  we  note  the  performance
feedback worksheet, dated 10 Nov 01 and  provided  by  the  applicant,
appears to contain several areas  that  his  rater  believed  required
improvement, to include various  comments  regarding  the  applicant’s
leadership skills. In the Board’s opinion, these comments  could  have
served as a basis for the rater and additional rater not to  recommend
the applicant for command or PME. However, as  indicated  by  the  Air
Force, these comments are not required on an OPR.  We  also  note  the
applicant never pursued his allegations of bias through  the  Military
Equal Opportunity office, nor did he appeal his OPR, as recommended by
the Inspector General’s office.  The statements submitted  in  support
of  the  applicant  were  considered;  however,   these   individuals’
statements do not establish that the rater and additional  rater  were
biased against him. Therefore, we are not persuaded the applicant  has
established that he was the victim of either an error or injustice. In
view of the  foregoing  and  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  to  the
contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable action on this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member
                  Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02859 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Sep 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 4 Oct 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Oct 02, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair