RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01568

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED: No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected  to  include  his
Bachelor's Degree and the most recent Overseas Duty History.

2.    The duty title on the Officer’s Performance Report (OPR) closing
out 8 July 1999 be corrected to reflect Chief, Alcohol and Drug  Abuse
and Treatment Program.

3.    The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) awarded for the period 3
November 1997 to 20 August 1999 be upgraded to a  Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM).

4.    He  be  considered  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year
2002B (CY02B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) had  discrepancies  as  it  met  the
CY02B board through no fault of his own.  He was not given credit  for
his most recent overseas long tour.  He notified his MPF at Charleston
AFB about the discrepancy in his overseas duty history  block  of  the
OSB, and they gave him written confirmation of the updated  record  of
his overseas long tour in England.  Unfortunately, somehow that update
never occurred and his record met the board without  the  update  that
was confirmed by AFPC.  He was being proactive earlier in  the  summer
(26 Jun 02), he had to get his MPF at Mildenhall, UK,  to  update  his
overseas duty history because they had somehow  dropped  his  previous
long tour to Alaska.  Both are now currently reflected.  In  addition,
his Bachelor’s Degree was not  reflected  in  the  academic  education
block of the OSB.  When he inquired into  this,  he  was  informed  by
Officer Promotions that only graduate degrees appear in this block and
that is why it is subtitled SPECIALTY SCHOOL.  They also said that  he
had to have a bachelor’s degree to be an officer in the first place so
that explanation made  sense  to  him.   He  found  out  in  his  post
promotion board counseling session that this was  incorrect  and  that
the other promotion candidates would have  had  all  degrees  held  on
their OSB.

Secondly, in light of being passed over for lieutenant colonel, he now
feels that he received prejudicial treatment by his  flight  commander
at Kessler Medical Center, which hurt his career.  We had a change  of
command four months prior to his PCS to England  and  the  new  flight
commander  exhibited  inappropriate  attitudes  and  language   toward
patients and staff.  He displayed unequal treatment  of  female  staff
members and toward him.  He would occasionally  use  a  derogatory  or
sarcastic pronunciation of his first name, which is Arabic.   Although
most of the staff  found  his  behavior  unprofessional,  he  did  not
believe anyone filed a complaint.  Since it was verbal, he thinks  the
prevailing  attitude  was  that  a  complaint  would   be   considered
frivolous.  He held that attitude himself.  However, when he got ready
to PCS, he experienced some concrete evidence of  his  discrimination.
He believes that his actions against him amounted  to  tampering  with
his career despite the fact that  the  IG  said  that  they  could  do
nothing to correct the problems.

Specifically, his flight commander, Col  L___,  put  his  former  duty
title (Clinical Social Worker) on his last OPR at Kessler, rather than
the job  title  he  held  at  the  time  (Chief,  Alcohol  Drug  Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Program),  as  reflected  on  his  Air  Force
Commendation (AFCM).  After granting a two-month time on station (TOS)
waiver at the request of his gaining command, he put him in as  a  no-
submit for any decoration for his tour at Kessler.   He  had  to  wait
seven months to be informed by his losing MPF of his award status  (he
had been inquiring about his award every couple of  months  since  his
permanent change of station).  His local IG referred him to the IG  at
Kessler who informed him that complaints about  OPR’s  or  Awards  and
Decorations did not meet their criteria.  When his next OPR  came  due
in July 2000, his rater (flight commander) urged him to write  to  his
former group commander to correct the slight.

It is plain to see by his  letter  of  inquiry  to  his  former  group
commander, that he went out of his way  to  be  professional,  not  to
claim discrimination on the part of his flight commander so long after
the fact.  In fact he never mentioned him by name, believing that  the
facts would speak for themselves and that  he  would  get  the  proper
recognition for his tour of duty at Kessler.  He had  no  doubts  that
Col L__’s predecessor, Col C__, whom he worked for all  but  the  last
four months of his tour, would have strongly supported  and  justified
the award of an MSM based on field grade status, his duty  performance
(particularly the 1.2 million dollars that he  saved  the  command  in
training costs annually) which was reflected in both his OPR and AFCM,
and his DP to major.  Unfortunately, a year had passed and he was  not
known or remembered by those who now had to make  a  decision  on  his
award.  His former flight commander,  Col  C__,  and  former  squadron
commander, Col Mc__, had  retired.   In  response  to  his  letter  of
inquiry, the new squadron commander was asked to make a recommendation
for decoration on a major he never met, yet one he knew left without a
recommendation for any award by his  flight  commander.   The  inquiry
generated an AFCM rather than an MSM.  To this day  he  believes  that
his career was tampered with, but since none of us are  “entitled”  to
any award of level of award, he was without further recourse.

For the purposes of this appeal, what he is saying is  that  the  duty
title he held at the time of his OPR was written was the  one  he  was
entitled to and would  have  reflected  greater  diversity  of  career
experience to the board.  And if not for Col L__’s “no-submit” for any
decoration, he would have had four MSM’s in a  row,  rather  than  two
followed by an AFCM (as his first award as  a  field  grade  officer).
The two MSM’s that he earned as a company grade officer do not reflect
any leniency on the part of the U.S. Army when it comes to awards  and
decorations, but rather consistent meritorious service – the first due
to the fact that he earned the Commanding  General’s  Award  of  Merit
(leadership award) with the  4th  Infantry  Division  at  Fort  Carson
initiation/implementation/management   of   special   programs   while
assigned to Fort Lewis.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits, copies of emails,  OSB’s,
OPR, citation for AFCM, letter of inquiry to 81MDG/CC,  and  promotion
recommendation (PRF).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of Major with a date of rank of 1 January 1999.

Applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the CY02B selection board.

Applicant has received four OPR's since he was promoted to  the  grade
of major, all of which reflects "Meets Standards."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommend denial and stated the OSB  did  not  reflect  the
applicant’s overseas duty tour assignment to RAF Croughton UK, from  7
September 1999 to 1 September 2002, in  the  “Overseas  duty  History”
block.  The applicant provides an email from HQ AFPC/DPAPP1 confirming
the update in  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)  on  4
November 2002.  Although the information  was  not  reflected  in  the
“Overseas Duty History” block, the “
Assignment  History”  block  clearly  reflected  a  duty   entry   for
Croughton, effective 7 September 1999, up until his new assignment  to
Charleston, effective 10  September  2002.   In  addition,  the  board
members reviewed the applicant’s top three Officer Performance Reports
(OPRs) closing out 8 July 2000,      8  July  2001,  and  20  February
2002, which were all records of his performance while assigned to  the
422nd Air Base Squadron (USAFE), RAF Croughton,  England.   Therefore,
the central board did have before it  material  information  regarding
this tour.

The applicant states that he was told by Officer Promotions that  only
graduate degrees  appear  in  the  “Academic  Education  Block”.   The
applicant speaks to the fact that he was provided  misinformation  but
fails to provide evidence to authenticate this claim.

The applicant’s final contention, which he also believes is the result
of prejudicial treatment by his flight commander, is  that  he  should
have received an Meritorious Service Medal instead  of  an  Air  Force
Commendation Medal as an end-of-tour decoration.   IAW   AFI  36-2803,
The Air Force’s Award and Decoration  Program,  paragraph  2.2.6.,  no
individual is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an
operational TDY or departure for an assignment nor does the  applicant
provide any evidence to substantiate this claim.

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial and states  the  applicant  contends  his
duty title is incorrect on the OPR, however, MilPds currently reflects
the same duty title that is listed on the report.   Also,  the  report
itself actually substantiates the “Clinical Social Worker” duty title.
 For example, Section III, 2., line one,  states,  “Provides  clinical
social work services…”, Section VI on  the  last  one,  states,  “…for
clinical social workers,” and the rater in his comments in Section  VI
on the last line states the applicant is ready for  a  “Mental  Health
Clinic Chief” role.  The entire  report  reflects  that  the  Clinical
Social Worker was the correct duty title and the rating chain  is  not
heard from to indicate otherwise.  While the  AFCM  citation  reflects
both duty titles, there is nothing to indicate Clinical Social  Worker
was not in fact the duty title when the OPR  closed-out.   Again,  the
report itself strongly indicates that was the correct duty title.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when it becomes a mater of record.  There are no errors with the  July
1999 report.  Allowing the applicant to change the duty  title  simply
because he disagrees with the one his rater
used  would  be  unjust  since  he,  did  not  have   any   supporting
documentation from his rating chain or any other  evidence  to  backup
his contentions

AFPC/DPPPE complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Applicant reviewed Air Force evaluations and  stated  that  he  is
asking for an SSB because the treatment he received from Col L__.   He
now believes this could have made the difference in his  non-selection
for Lt Col.  Rather than  the  promotion  board  seeing  a  consistent
record of meritorious service – two MSM’s as a company grade  officer,
a commanding general’s leadership award (and MSM as well as a Chief of
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Program  (ADAPT)  duty
title at Keesler – which he believes he missed due to career tampering
on the part of one individual), followed by another MSM and  Chief  of
Life Skills at RAF  Croughton,  what  the  board  saw  was  two  MSM’s
followed by an AFCM as his first award by  a  Clinical  Social  Worker
entry level position at Keesler as a field grade officer.  For a board
trying to evaluate leadership potential this could have been  seen  as
going backwards and he is questioning whether that made difference  on
the promotion board.

The other two items on his complaint were the one’s AFPC/DPPPO  agrees
were timely – namely, that his OSB was incorrect as it met  the  board
through no fault of his own.  He will not belabor  these  points  even
though he does not agree with the advisory  opinions  to  the  AFBCMR.
The bottom line is that he did timely inquiry into  the  discrepancies
on his OSB and AFPC did not update the  information.   His  bachelor’s
degree and his second overseas long tour were  missing  from  his  OSB
when it met  the  board.   When  he  had  his  non-select  post  board
interview with Col G__, she informed him that these omissions made him
eligible for an appeal because the other promotion candidate’s records
would have met the board without these discrepancies.  These two items
may be minor points by themselves unless  taken  in  conjunction  with
what happened to him at Keesler and seen in the context  of  a  weaker
record meeting the promotion board as compared to the other candidates
– a record  that  did  not  accurately  reflect  his  consistent  duty
performance for the Army and Air Force over many years.

Applicant’s complete response 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 not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse that failure to timely file.

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of an  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions 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.   The  Board  took  note  that  the
Overseas Duty History and  academic  information  may  not  have  been
available in his  Officer  Selection  Record  (OSR)  for  the  board’s
review.  However, the selection board had  his  entire  OSR  at  their
disposal, reflecting the  correct  overseas  duty  at  RAF  Croughton,
England and his academic information during the convening of the CY02B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection  Board.    With  respect  to  the
contested  duty  title,  the  applicant  provides   no   documentation
substantiating his allegation that the duty title of the  8 July  1999
OPR is inaccurate; therefore, we find no basis upon which to alter  it
or the corresponding OSB entry. In addition,  evidence  has  not  been
presented which would lead us to  believe  that  his  commander  acted
inappropriately in deciding what type of medal was warranted  or  that
he abused his discretionary  authority  in  rendering  that  decision.
Furthermore, and more importantly, we have seen no evidence  that  the
errors on his OSB caused his record to be so erroneous  or  misleading
that the duly constituted selection,  vested  with  the  discretionary
authority to select officers for  promotion,  was  unable  to  make  a
reasonable decision  concerning  the  applicant’s  promotability  when
compared to his peers.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence  to  the
contrary, 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 a 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-2003-
02548 in Executive Session on 29 October 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, undated.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Jul 03
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.
      Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Oct 03.






      MARILYN THOMAS
      Vice Chair