RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01906
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered  for  the  period
16 Jun 96 through 15 Jun 97, be removed from his records.

2.  He be considered for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by
the Calendar Year  2000A  (CY00A),  CY01B,  CY02B,  and  the  CY03A  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint  against  the  ROTC  detachment
commander  for  inappropriate  remarks,  actions,   and   favoritism.    The
commander subsequently served him with  two  Letters  of  Reprimand  (LORs),
which led to a referral OPR.  The commander's assessment of  disloyalty  was
never proven, demonstrated, or  documented  and  is  inconsistent  with  his
promotion to the grade of major and selection as a sponsor  for  an  inbound
officer.  The commander channeled the IG, preventing the  discovery  of  the
root issues within the  detachment.   His  record  before  and  after  these
events are inconsistent with his commander's statement.

In support of his request, applicant provided witness statements,  character
references, documentation  associated  with  his  correspondence  with  U.S.
Senators, and documentation associated with the IG complaints.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system  reflects  the  applicant  was
appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  17  May  85  and
was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 15 Aug 85.  He  has  been
progressively promoted to the grade of  major,  having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 97.  He was  considered  and  not
selected for promotion to the grade lieutenant colonel by the CY00A,  CY01B,
CY02B, and the CY03A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

The following is a resume of the applicant's recent OPR profile:

      Period Ending          Overall Evaluation

            08 Apr 03        Meets Standards (MS)
            15 Apr 02             MS
            15 Jun 01             MS
            15 Jun 00             MS
            15 Jun 99             MS
            15 Jun 98             MS
            15 Jun 97 *      Does Not Meet Standards
            15 Jun 96             MS
            26 Jan 96             MS

* - Contested Report

The  Air  Education  and  Training  Command  (AETC)  IG  investigated   four
allegations of inappropriate conduct and  alleged  reprisal  and  found  all
four allegations unsubstantiated.   In  a  separate  investigation,  AETC/IG
investigated five allegations of reprisal and  found  all  five  allegations
unsubstantiated.  Copies of the reports of investigation are at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE states  the  ERAB  denied  his  request
stating he did not provide any evidence from his rating chain nor  were  any
findings from the IG investigation provided to  support  his  contention  of
mistreatment.  The most effective evidence consists of statements  from  the
evaluators who signed the report or from other  individuals  in  the  rating
chain when the report was signed.  The memorandums  from  his  peers,  while
admirable, did not offer any new evidence to  substantiate  the  report  was
not a fair assessment of his performance at the time  or  provide  firsthand
evidence the OPR  was  unjust  or  inaccurate.   He  filed  complaints  with
SAF/IGQ, two U.S Senators and AF/CC.  The only response  provided  was  from
the CSAF who stated, "Two separate investigations have been reviewed by  the
Air Force IG staff. The preponderance of the evidence did  not  substantiate
any of the allegations."

The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO  states  that  since  DPPPE  recommends
denial of his request, SSB consideration is not warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states his engagement with the  AF/IG,  CSAF,  and  Senators  came
after he attempted to utilize his chain of command and the ROTC/IG,  who  as
the vice commander was in his  chain  of  command.   Although  his  regional
commander told him he did not want to hear the specifics of his  issues,  he
still  followed  his  chain  of  command.   Considering  the  original   and
subsequent IG did not interview personnel he  requested,  the  preponderance
of evidence shows the IG  was  channeled  and  the  ROTC  chain  of  command
polluted against him.

Despite the evaluator's use of the word peers, this is not  the  case.   The
enlisted  personnel  in  the  detachment  clearly  lived  in  a  climate  of
intimidation prior to his arrival.  Major F--- arrived  during  the  initial
IG investigation and witnessed the obvious split in the  detachment  between
those who were in the commander's grace and those who were not.  Because  he
feared similar action against himself, he filed  a  "protection  file"  with
the Area Defense Counsel.  The  statements  from  these  personnel  are  not
opinions but facts that illustrate when a commander is not held  accountable
then a  series  of  circumstances  are  created,  which  in  this  case  was
manifested in his receiving a referral OPR.

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

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an injustice warranting voidance of the contested  OPR.   After
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record,  the  Board  majority  believes
that substantial doubt has been presented concerning  the  fairness  of  the
contested report and whether or not the report is  an  honest  and  accurate
depiction of his overall performance during  the  period  in  question.   In
this respect, the Board  majority  noted  that  the  documentation  provided
contains evidence of outstanding performance in addition to  the  statements
from senior Air Force  officers  who  consider  him  to  be  an  outstanding
officer.  While it appears that the applicant may have made some  judgmental
mistakes, it is the Board majority’s opinion that his  chain-of-command  may
have acted overzealously in deciding to perpetuate the disciplinary  actions
by rendering him a referral OPR.  Evidence provided  by  the  applicant  has
led the Board majority to believe  that  a  personality  conflict  may  have
existed between the applicant and his rater that hindered that  individual’s
ability to objectively assess his performance.  In consideration of all  the
factors involved, and in view of the  applicant’s  previous  and  subsequent
performance, the Board majority believes that any reasonable doubt  in  this
matter should be resolved in favor of the applicant.   Therefore  the  Board
majority recommends that the contested OPR be removed from his  records  and
he be considered for promotion by SSB as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Field Grade  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 16 June 1996 through  15
June 1997, be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by Special  Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Year
2000A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any  subsequent  boards
in which the OPR closing 15 June 1997, was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
01906 in Executive Session on 16 Mar 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. James Wolffe, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The  majority  of  the  Board  members  voted  to  correct  the  records  as
recommended.  Mr. Russell voted to deny the request and  did  not  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Sep 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 sep 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  IG Reports of Investigation - WITHDRAWN




                             OLGA M. CRERAR
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01906




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 the Field Grade Officer
Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 16 June
1996 through 15 June 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar
Year 2000A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent
boards in which the OPR closing 15 June 1997, was a matter of record.







                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency