RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00601
            INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It   appears   the   applicant   is   requesting   revised   Promotion
Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the CY01A (P0401A) and CY02B  (P0402B)
Central Major Selection Boards.  She be considered  for  promotion  to
the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB)  for  the  CY01A
and CY02B Central Major Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was racially discriminated against for approximately two years  by
the  squadron  commander/chief  nurse  at  Shaw  AFB.   The   squadron
commander took it upon himself to write all PRFs in order  to  control
the promotion selection process of individuals who  were  not  in  his
direct line of supervision.  Specifically,  her  CY01A  PRF  contained
weak and meaningless statements  that  neither  reflected,  nor  fully
recognized her accomplishments.  Her CY02B PRF was written by the same
squadron commander who wrote her  CY02A  PRF  and  actually  used  the
identical  bullet  statements  that  were  identified  as   weak   and
meaningless on her CY01A PRF.

In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement  and
a copy of  her  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-2401  appeal,  with
attachments, and a statement from a former coworker.  The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
17 February 1988.  She is currently serving  on  active  duty  in  the
grade of captain, with an effective  date  and  date  of  rank  of  24
February 1992.

Applicant's OPR profile for the last ten reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

                31 May 95    Meets Standards (MS)
                31 May 96         MS
                31 May 97         MS
                31 May 98         MS
            #   31 May 99         MS
                31 May 00         MS
            ##  19 Mar 01         MS
            ### 20 Nov 01         MS
            ####22 Jun 02         MS
                 3 Feb 03         MS

# Top report at the  time  she  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to major by  the  CY00A  (P0400A)  Central  Major  Selection
Board, which convened on 24 January 2000.

## Top report at the time  she  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to major by  the  CY01A  (P0401A)  Central  Major  Selection
Board, which convened on 18  June  2001.   The  applicant  received  a
“Promote” recommendation on her P0401A PRF.

### Top report at the time she  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to major by  the  CY02A  (P0402A)  Central  Major  Selection
Board, which convened on 19 February 2002.  The applicant  received  a
“Promote” recommendation on her P0402A PRF.

#### Top report at the time she was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to major by  the  CY02B  (P0402B)  Central  Major  Selection
Board, which convened on 3 October 2002.   The  applicant  received  a
“Promote” recommendation on her P0402B PRF.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and returned without action by the  Evaluation
Report Appeal Board  (ERAB)  in  February  2003.   The  applicant  was
notified that her request for reconsideration for  promotion  did  not
fall under the purview of the ERAB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 states that the applicant’s records have been  reviewed
by HQ AFPC/DPAMN (Medical Service Officer  Management  Division),  who
concurs with the  comments  provided  by  the  previous  Chief,  Nurse
Utilization and Education  Branch.   The  comments  regarding  “poorly
written with weak bullet statements” apply only to  the  PRF  for  the
P0401A major selection board.  A complete copy of this  evaluation  is
appended at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that
the applicant has  not  provided  any  documentation  to  support  her
allegations of racial discrimination by the squadron chief/chief nurse
or that he wrote all PRFs in order to control the selection process of
individual promotions.  With regard to bullet statements on  her  PRF,
the senior rater bears the responsibility of selecting what to include
in the PRF, and what to leave out; which  portions  of  the  officer’s
career to concentrate on, and which portions to have supported by  the
record.  The applicant has not  provided  new  PRFs,  with  supportive
documentation from  the  senior  rater  and  management  level  review
president as required.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended
at Exhibit D.


HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPO  reviewed
the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPPE and HQ  AFPC/DPAMF2  advisories  and
have nothing further to add.  A complete copy of  this  evaluation  is
appended at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated  that  the
chief nurse and the numbered medical group commander have  since  been
reassigned (PCS).   While  at  Shaw  AFB  and  prior  to  the  Central
Selection  Board  (CSB),  efforts  were  made  to  resolve  the  issue
concerning the 2001 PRF written by the chief nurse.   She  arranged  a
meeting with the group commander and was told that her next PRF  would
be much stronger and reflect current  accomplishments.   She  realizes
that the senior rater makes the decision on what to include in the PRF
and what portions of her career to focus on.  However, she expected  a
different version of her 2002 PRF  than  the  same  identical  version
prepared on the 2001 PRF.  She could not dispute the 2002 PRF  because
she and her chain of command had  been  reassigned  by  the  time  she
received the 2002 PRF.  She feels that the chief nurse failed to place
her in an equitable position that would allow her a  fair  opportunity
for promotion by the wording and choice of bullet statements  for  two
consecutive years.  As far as the racial discrimination  complaint  is
concerned, this is very difficult to prove  particularly  because  she
does not have any substantial proof to support it.

In support of her request, applicant submits copies of  her  PRFs  for
promotion consideration  below-the-zone,  in-the-zone  and  above-the-
zone.  Applicant’s former flight  commander,  who  is  the  additional
rater on her OPRs rendered during the period 1 June  1999  through  22
June 2002, has submitted a  statement  of  support.   The  applicant’s
complete  submission,  with  attachments,  and   the   former   flight
commander’s letter are 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.  After a thorough review  of  the
documentation pertaining to this appeal, we are unpersuaded  that  the
contested  PRFs  should  be  revised  and  the  applicant  given   SSB
consideration.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted, as was the
former flight commander’s supporting statement.  However, we  did  not
find any support from the appropriate senior rater or  the  Management
Level Review (MLR) president.  The applicant did not submit,  nor  did
we find, evidence to support her allegation that the senior rater  did
not follow the intent of the Air Force instruction with regard to  her
PRFs.  We are therefore not persuaded by the available  evidence  that
the contested PRFs are inaccurate as written  or  technically  flawed.
In addition, the applicant has not provided evidence  to  substantiate
racial discrimination.  Consequently, we agree with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  (HQ
AFPC/DPPPE) and adopt the rationale expressed as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that  she
has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Session on 14  August  2003,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00601.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 25 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 13 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from Applicant, dated 18 June 03, w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair