RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:BC-2002-03385

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period    11 May
2000 through 10 May 2001 be  declared  void  and  he  receive  Special
Selection Board consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel by  the  Calendar  Years  2001B   (CY01B)  and  2002A  (CY02A)
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR included a statement from a  former  supervisor  who
manipulated a former employee to file a sexual harassment complaint in
order to discredit him.  This supervisor had a substantial personality
conflict with him and sought to use  this  complaint  to  destroy  his
career.  He was never punished for any  such  offense;  however,  this
same supervisor succeeded in convincing the chain of command to  trust
his judgment and agree to  persecute  him.   Numerous  statements  are
provided  to  demonstrate  the  unfair  behavior  of  the   supervisor
including a statement from the claimant indicating  that  his  actions
were against her wishes.

In support of the  applicant’s  appeal,  he  submits  a  copy  of  the
contested OPR, Evaluation Report Appeal Board Letter,  and  statements
from co-workers.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of colonel by the CY01B and CY02B Colonel Selection Boards.

On 12 December 2001, the applicant appealed the contested report under
the provisions of AFI  36-2401  and  the  appeal  was  considered  and
returned without action by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board  (ERAB).
The ERAB recommended that the applicant request a  new  and  impartial
investigation into the case by  an  agency  not  affiliated  with  the
medical organization or the chain of command, such as, the  81  TRW/IG
or 81 TRW/MEO offices.  The  findings  of  this  new  and  independent
investigation will ensure the applicant receives due  process.   These
findings can then be resubmitted in another appeal, if desired.

Applicant’s OPR profile since 2002, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 31 Jan 96        Meets Standards (MS)
                 31 Jan 97                   MS
                 31 Jan 98                   MS
                 31 Jul 98                   MS
                 18 Jun 99                   MS
                 10 May 00                   MS
            *    10 May 01                   Referral
                 08 Jul 02                   Referral

      * Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommend the AFBCMR deny the applicant’s request  to  void
the 10 May 2001 OPR.  After careful review of the contested OPR, it is
clear that the was report referred for  two  reasons;  1)  applicant’s
lack of leadership, and 2) substantiated case  of  sexual  harassment.
IAW AFI 36-2406, para 1.3.2, “evaluation reports must reflect  serious
or  repeated  occurrences  of  discrimination,   to   include   sexual
harassment…”   The  rating   chain   and   commander   determine   the
“seriousness” of the sexual harassment.  In the applicant’s case,  the
rating chain and commander determined it serious enough to include  it
in the     10 May 2001 OPR.  There is no discrepancy identified in the
applicant’s OPR as it relates  to  Air  Force  Evaluation  Policy  and
Procedures.

Although the applicant has provided many supporting  memorandums  from
co-workers and friends, he failed to substantiate his  allegations  of
bias  through  proper  channels  (i.e.  MEO  Investigation,  Commander
Directed Investigation, or  an  IG  Investigation).   The  applicant’s
reasoning behind not pursuing an MEO or IG  investigation  is  due  to
“the  commander  who  had  made  the  original  decision  has  changed
assignments, the general officer (MDG/CC) has returned me to the  duty
section and there doesn’t appear to  be  any  other  remedy  for  this
situation other than to remove the OPR  which  referenced  the  sexual
harassment.”  These reasons do not excuse the applicant  from  proving
his allegations that the rating chain was biased toward him.  The  MEO
or  IG  is  still  very  real  avenues  to  pursue  in  an  effort  to
substantiate his allegations.  If his rating chain were in fact biased
towards him, an investigation into this matter would substantiate it.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when it becomes a matter of record.  There are no errors or injustices
cited in the 10 May 2001 OPR.  The commander directed an investigation
into matter concerning sexual harassment,  which  were  substantiated.
The rating chain and commander determined that it was  appropriate  to
mention this within his 10  May  2001  OPR.   The  investigation  also
turned up concerns surrounding his  Leadership  abilities,  which  was
also mentioned with the OPR.  Bottom line,  the  applicant  failed  to
provide supporting  documentation  (i.e.  MEO,  IG  investigation)  to
substantiate his allegation of bias.

AFPC/DPPPE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  The applicant contends that his rating
chain maliciously and vindictively ruined his career  by  including  a
substantiated  allegation  of  sexual  harassment  in  his  OPR.   The
applicant further states that the  complainant  was  manipulated  into
filing a sexual harassment complaint  against  him;  however,  in  the
complainant’s memorandum dated 7 August 2001, she reiterates  that  it
is her belief that the applicant did say and do things that were in an
sexual manner.  The  commander  directed  an  investigation  into  the
comment(s) and upon completion, sexual  harassment  was  substantiated
(is only fair to point out that the applicant alleges that there  were
discrepancies  and   improprieties   with   the   commander   directed
investigation).  They reviewed the findings  in  AFPC/DPPPE  advisory,
and have nothing further  to  add.   Since  that  advisory  recommends
denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  stated  that  he
has conceded that the evaluator is correct  in  pointing  out  that  a
follow-up investigation by MEO or IG would have been  beneficial.   In
his defense, he would like to point out that he contact  MEO  and  was
told only the commander can request this investigation, that MEO staff
are merely consultants to be used if requested by the  commander.   It
was shortly after this that he learned of his diagnosis of an advanced
stage of cancer and his thoughts were not with making an IG complaint,
but surviving chemotherapy and the cancer.  Given the  fact  that  the
advisory board has not recommended that this OPR  be  voided  and  the
injustice overturned, he will seek the office of the  IG  in  case  it
isn’t too late to  remedy  this  situation.   He  will  forward  their
findings or recommendation should the IG feel it is possible to  still
investigate the circumstances.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of
the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the  contest  report  should  be  voided.   Applicant’s
allegations concerning the investigation  into  his  conduct  is  duly
noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and
by themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  Furthermore, we see no evidence that there
were any improprieties in the commander's decision to relieve  him  of
his supervisory duties or that his commander abused his  discretionary
authority in doing so.  The applicant provided statements from outside
the rating chain, but he did not present any  credible  evidence  from
his rating  chain  or  other  agencies  to  support  his  contentions.
Applicant states tht he is filing a complaint with the IG and if it is
found that the allegations against him are false he should submit  the
results to the Board for consideration.  Therefore, absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis  upon  which  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

____________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2002-
03385 in Executive Session on 3 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:


                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Mr. George Franklin, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  OSI Report, dated 28 May 02 - WITHDRAWN.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Dec 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 03, w/atchs.





                                  WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair