RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03034,
                       CASE 2
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) for  the  periods  ending
2 January 2000, 2001, 2002 be replaced with reaccomplished reports.

2.    His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for  the  Calendar  Year
(CY)  2002B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central  Selection  Board  (CSB)  be
replaced with a  reaccomplished  report  and  award  of  a  definitely
promote promotion recommendation.

3.    His corrected records be considered for Special Selection  Board
(SSB) consideration by the CY02B central lieutenant colonel  selection
board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was assigned to the Joint Non-Lethal  Weapons  Directorate  through
the Air Force Element for Medical  Support  from  March  1999  through
March 2002.  During this  time  he  received  three  OPRs.   For  each
report,  he  provided  his   rater   with   bullets   reflecting   his
accomplishments for the rating period.  Each time his  rater  softened
the language and removed adjectives, and made the  reports  comparable
to Marine Corps performance reports.  His  rater  would  not  consider
statements of stratification or statements of strong support  for  his
future potential as these items were not  appropriate  to  the  Marine
Corps style performance reports.  His rater  refused  to  discuss  his
OPRs with anyone in the Air Force chain below an  O-6  and  would  not
incorporate the comments of the O-6 in the chain.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

The Board previously reviewed  and  granted  a  request  to  have  the
citation for the applicant’s Defense Meritorious Service Medal  (DMSM)
awarded for the period 5-22 March 1999 be considered for promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by an SSB.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY02B central  lieutenant  CSB.   He  was
considered by the SSB that convened on 9 December 2003, with inclusion
of the citation for the DMSM in his  Officer  Selection  Record.   The
results for this board will not be published until March 2004.

The applicant appealed the contested reports under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the  applicant's  appeal
stating,  “Major           ’s  rater  was  a  USMC  Colonel,  but  his
additional rater/reviewer was a  USAF  Brig  Gen  who  served  as  the
primary  quality  control  level  to  guard  against  inaccuracy   and
exaggeration on his reports.”   The  ERAB  further  stated  “A  simple
willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not
a valid basis for doing so.”

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                  *2 Jan 00       Meets Standards
                  *2 Jan 01       Meets Standards
                  *2 Jan 02       Meets Standards

*Contested Reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant’s rater and senior  rater  provided
reaccomplished reports to replace  the  contested  reports.   However,
nothing had been provided to prove that  the  contested  reports  were
unjust based on their content  as  initially  written.   They  further
reiterate and fully concur with the ERAB’s finding.   The  applicant’s
rater was a Marine Corps officer; his  additional  rater  was  an  Air
Force Brigadier General who was aware of Air Force policies concerning
evaluation reports.  If the additional rater  had  concerns  with  the
outcome of the applicant’s report, he could and should have  addressed
them at that time.  Nor, was there any indication by the rating  chain
of any concerns with the applicant’s reports  until  his  nonselection
for promotion.  Also, it is noted that the additional  rater  was  the
same on all three reports and had ample  opportunity  to  address  any
concerns during that time.

AFPC/DPPPE further states the applicant’s  request  for  his  PRF  for
CY02B to  reflect  “a  definitely  promote”  rating  does  not  remove
negative and or add positive information,  which  was  not  previously
known.  Therefore, it would not be  fair  to  allow  the  applicant  a
second look for promotion not offered other servicemembers.  Based  on
the documentation provided, DPPPE recommends the requested  relief  be
denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory and has  nothing  further
to add and since DPPPE recommends denying the  requested  relief,  SSB
consideration is not warranted.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  he
submitted as evidence his selection as Air Force Physicist of the year
for 2001, his Defense Meritorious Service  Medal  for  the  three-year
period and letters from his rater  and  senior  rater  supporting  his
request.  This evidence clearly shows  the  performance  reports  were
unjust and based on the rater’s comments to  him  and  his  letter  of
support, indicates the rater believes he should serve  in  the  higher
grade.

Air Force OPRs must be written in a specific style to be  competitive.
His rater wrote strong reports in the Marine Corps style.   His  rater
resisted effort by the Air  Force  chain  of  command  to  incorporate
stronger language especially with respect to stratification, nor would
he propose stronger verbiage to his senior rater.  As  a  result,  his
performance reports were mediocre and definitely impacted  his  chance
for promotion (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 thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are unpersuaded the requested relief should  be
granted.  Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however,  the  Board
does not find these assertions, in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  offices  of  the
Air Force.  The applicant did not provide any evidence as to  why  the
reports are not accurate reflections of his performance.  Although, he
provided documentation  from  his  rating  chain  in  support  of  his
requests, he did not provide  persuasive  evidence  the  reports  were
erroneous or unjust based on their content as  written.   Furthermore,
his additional rater for  all  three  reports  was  a  USAF  Brigadier
General who  was  well  aware  of  the  AF  policies  regarding  OPRs.
Therefore, based on evidence provided, the Board finds  no  compelling
basis upon which to recommend granting the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2003-03034 in Executive Session on 10 February 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
                       Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. AFBCMR, ROP, dated 29 Jul 03
      Exhibit C. Applicant's Officer Selection Brief.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 31 Oct 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Nov 03.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, dated 5 Jan 04.




                             ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                             Panel Chair