RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03695
            INDEX CODE 107.00, 111.01, 111.03, 111.05
                             COUNSEL:  Raymond J. Toney

                             HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  closing  14 Jan  94  and
14 Jan 95 be declared void and removed from her records.

2.  The Air Force Commendation Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf  Cluster  (AFCM
2OLC), for the period  3 Mar  93  to  29 Feb  96,  be  upgraded  to  a
Meritorious Service Medal with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM 3OLC).

3. She be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel  or  be
afforded consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB), with back pay
and allowances upon promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The additional rater of the  contested  reports,  Col  M,  effectively
undermined her promotion opportunities and career. While the contested
OPRs do not contain adverse information per se, they are  considerably
weaker than all the reports prior to and after  Col  M’s  evaluations.
Even before he met her, Col M was making inquiries because,  based  on
her official photograph, he believed she was overweight. He later told
her he would not support her for any command position because she  did
not present a good command image. Col M directly contacted  Air  Force
officials and,  based  on  unsubstantiated  allegations  and  personal
biases, “blackballed” her from being assigned to a  command  position.
In 1994, she contacted a member of the Inspector General (IG) team but
was told investigation was not warranted and she should move  on  with
her life. She also sought review and upgrade of  the  AFCM,  but  this
effort was  shot  down  by  the  influence  of  both  Col  M  and  his
replacement. But for Col M’s unlawful actions,  she  would  have  been
promoted to  lieutenant  colonel.  His  malicious  discrimination  was
contrary to Air Force policy, and his prejudice tainted her record for
the selection boards.

The rater of  the  14  Jan  94  and  95  contested  reports  (and  the
uncontested 14 Jan 96 OPR)  provides  two  statements.  One  statement
advises he recommended the applicant for the MSM, which was downgraded
to an AFCM by Col M’s successor.  The  rater  asserts  in  his  second
statement that Col M disliked overweight people, noting he himself was
asked by Col M in a phone  interview  if  he  was  overweight.  Col  M
commented frequently that he did not  like  the  applicant’s  physical
appearance. The rater states the applicant took medication to treat  a
thyroid condition, had plastic surgery at her own expense  to  correct
her chin and neck, and voluntarily weighed in to show she  was  within
Air Force standards, but nothing changed Col P’s  extreme  dislike  of
her. He adds the  applicant  was  so  stressed  by  Col  M’s  negative
comments and opinions of her  that  she  resumed  smoking  and  sought
treatment for depression. The rater believes the  applicant  was  very
good at her job but Col M was biased against security police  officers
in general and the applicant in particular. Even after Col P left,  he
used his influence to adversely affect the applicant’s assignment  and
promotion opportunities.

The rater of the 19 Dec 92 OPR also submits a  statement  and  praises
the applicant’s leadership and professional capabilities. Knowing  Col
M’s reputation for dealing with people based on surface issues, he was
concerned about the  applicant’s  assignment  to  Pacific  Air  Forces
(PACAF). The applicant’s name came up for  possible  assignments  over
the next three years, but  he  learned  Col  M  always  contacted  the
command  and  recommended  against  her  selection.  Further,  Col   M
suggested the applicant leave PACAF,  but  when  she  volunteered  for
reassignment, he proceeded to undermine her efforts, placing her in  a
classic “Catch 22” situation. He believes  that,  no  matter  how  the
applicant excelled, she could never overcome Col M’s bias.

Counsel’s  complete  submission,  including  a   31-page   brief   and
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

In a statement provided under separate cover, the Director of Manpower
&  Organization,  HQ  USAF/DPM  (brigadier   general)   supports   the
applicant’s request to rectify an  error.  He  lauds  her  exceptional
leadership,  wide  breadth  of  experience  and  passionate  mentoring
skills. He believes her warrior ethos and  work  ethic,  coupled  with
caring leadership, are exactly what the Air Force needs to command and
to build and mold future leaders.

A complete copy of the statement is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 4 Feb 81  and  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of major with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Jul 93.

During the period in question,  she  served  as  the  Chief,  Plans  &
Resources Branch for PACAF at Hickam AFB,  HI.  The  additional  rater
(Col M) of the 14 Jan 94 and 14 Jan 95 contested OPRs,  who  was  also
the reviewer, was the Director of Security Police, PACAF, Hickam  AFB,
HI.  The applicant’s performance  reports  for  the  period  4 Feb  81
through 28 Jun 88  were  under  the  previous  evaluation  system  and
reflect the highest ratings in performance and potential. The OPRs for
the period  20  Dec  89  through  1 Sep  99  come  under  the  current
evaluation system  and  all,  including  the  two  contested  reports,
reflect that the applicant met all standards.

She was awarded the AFCM 2OLC for the period 3 Mar 93 to 29 Feb 96  on
12 Mar 96.

The applicant  was  considered  but  not  selected  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C),  CY98B,  CY99A,
and CY99B lieutenant colonel Central Selection  Boards.  These  boards
convened  on  21  Jul  97,  1 Jul  98,  19 Apr  99,  and  30 Nov   99,
respectively.  The  overall  recommendation  on  all  four   Promotion
Recommendation Forms (PRFs) was “Promote.”

On 15 Mar 01, the applicant was awarded an MSM 3OLC for the  period  2
Mar 96 to 31 Oct 00 for her service at her  subsequent  assignment  at
Los Angeles AFB, CA. [Note: If the AFCM 2OLC is  upgraded  to  an  MSM
3OLC for the period ending 29 Feb 96, the  MSM  3OLC  for  the  period
ending 31 Oct 00 would have to be changed to 4OLC.]

The applicant retired in the grade of major on 1 Nov 00 after 20 years
and 4 months of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE contends the applicant provides absolutely no proof that
Col P was biased against her because of her physical  appearance.  The
applicant, as well  as  other  evaluators,  should  provide  firsthand
evidence clearly showing how the conflict prevented the evaluator from
preparing a fair and accurate report.  In  his  statement,  the  rater
indicated the additional rater disliked the  applicant  based  on  her
appearance and other reasons;  however,  this  statement  was  written
years after the allegation took place. Further,  the  rater  does  not
state the reports should be removed or voided, he  never  alleges  the
reports he signed  were  erroneous,  and  he  does  not  indicate  the
additional rater coerced him to write the report  in  a  certain  way.
Neither  the  applicant  nor  the  rater  went  to   the   appropriate
authorities, such as the  IG,  to  make  a  complaint  or  request  an
investigation. Instead the applicant has waited nine years to  contest
the accuracy of the reports. Denial is strongly  recommended,  as  the
applicant  has  not  provided  sufficient  evidence   sustaining   her
allegations.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ  AFPC/DPPPR  advises  an  individual’s  supervisor  determines  the
decoration to recognize accomplishments. However, each official in the
chain of command must provide an endorsement to  approve,  disapprove,
or downgrade the decoration recommended. Ultimately, it’s  up  to  the
approval authority to decide to approve, disapprove, or downgrade  the
decoration. The applicant did not provide  any  evidence  recommending
officials requested reconsideration of the downgraded  decoration,  as
is afforded in the governing regulation. HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends  the
Board direct the applicant to  exercise  the  provisions  outlined  in
para. 3.3.8. of AFI 36-2803. Once that  is  accomplished  and  written
evidence of the  approval  authority’s  decision  on  the  request  to
reconsider the original decoration is obtained, then the applicant may
resubmit her DD Form 149.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO  has  nothing  to  add  to  the  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE  and  HQ
AFPC/DPPPR advisories. As for direct promotion, both Congress and  DOD
have made clear their intent that perceived errors affecting promotion
should be addressed and resolved through SSBs. Without access  to  all
the competing records and an  appreciation  of  their  content,  DPPPO
believes the practice of sending cases to SSBs is the fairest and best
practice. Direct promotion should  be  considered  only  in  the  most
extraordinary circumstances where SSB consideration would  be  totally
unworkable. Direct promotion and, if the  OPRs  are  not  voided,  SSB
consideration should both be denied. If the Board decides  to  upgrade
the AFCM 2OLC to the  MSM  3OLC,  then  SSB  consideration  should  be
granted with the inclusion of the upgraded decoration.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel  takes  exception  to  the  advisory  opinions  and   presents
arguments contending the application is  timely,  his  client  is  not
seeking promotion on the basis  of  expediency,  she  did  attempt  to
involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has  been
provided to warrant granting the relief sought.

Also provided is an additional statement from the rater of the  14 Jan
94  and  95  contested  OPRs,  indicating  he  was  pressured  by  the
additional rater to make the OPRs weaker than they should  have  been.
He  asserts  the  additional  rater’s  biases  against  the  applicant
prevented him from rating the applicant fairly and  realistically.  He
wholeheartedly supports the applicant’s request to void these reports.

A complete copy of counsel’s rebuttal, with attachment, is at  Exhibit
H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant partial  relief.  After
reviewing the supporting statements from the rater  of  the  contested
reports, the rater of the 19 Dec 92 OPR, and the Director of  Manpower
& Organization, HQ USAF/DPM (an active duty general officer),  we  are
persuaded  they  provide  convincing  evidence  of   the   applicant’s
capabilities and the additional rater’s overt prejudice  against  her.
The additional rater apparently was intolerant about certain  physical
features, regardless of an individual’s  performance,  and  pursued  a
personal vendetta against the applicant for  several  years.  In  this
regard, the  additional  rater  attempted  to  negatively  impact  the
applicant’s career and assignment  selection,  even  when  he  was  no
longer in her evaluation  chain.  In  our  view,  these  actions  give
credence to counsel’s contention that  the  lackluster  OPRs  and  the
downgraded MSM were influenced by the  additional  rater’s  prejudice.
While we cannot determine absolutely that these issues were the  cause
of the applicant’s nonselection to the grade of lieutenant colonel, we
believe her opportunity for  promotion  consideration  may  have  been
compromised. As a result, we recommend the 14 Jan  94  and  14 Jan  05
OPRs be voided from her  records  and  the  29 Feb  96  AFCM  2OLC  be
upgraded to an MSM 3OLC. The MSM 3OLC for the period ending 31 Oct 00,
therefore, would have to be changed to an MSM  4OLC.  The  applicant's
request for direct promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  was
not favorably considered. We note that officers compete for  promotion
under the whole person concept,  whereby  selection  boards  carefully
assess many factors. An officer may be qualified for promotion but, in
the judgment of  a  promotion  board  vested  with  the  discretionary
authority to make the selections, may not be  the  best  qualified  of
available candidates for the limited number  of  promotion  vacancies.
Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would have been a selectee had
her record reflected  the  recommended  changes,  we  believe  a  duly
constituted SSB applying the complete promotion  criteria  is  in  the
most advantageous position to render  this  vital  determination,  and
that  its  prerogative  to  do  so  should  only  be   usurped   under
extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the applicant’s records should
be amended 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:

      a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, AF Forms  707A,
rendered for the periods 20 December 1992 through 14 January 1994, and
15 January 1994 through 14 January 1995, be declared void and  removed
from her records.

      b.  The Air Force Commendation Medal, with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster,
for the period 3 March 1993 to 29 February  1996,  be  upgraded  to  a
Meritorious Service Medal, with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster.

      c.  The Meritorious Service Medal, for the period  2 March  1996
to 31 October 2000, be changed to reflect 4th Oak Leaf Cluster, rather
than 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster.

It is further recommended that her records be considered for promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special  Selection  Board  for
the Calendar Year 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board and
for any subsequent  selection  boards  for  which  the  above  Officer
Performance Reports were a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 May 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.  The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2003-03695 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 03, & Counsel’s Letter,
                  dated 19 Nov 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, Counsel, dated 21 Jan 04, w/Statement.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 Jan 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 10 Feb 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Mar 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 3 May 04, w/atch.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2003-03695


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   , be corrected to show that:

           a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, AF Forms
707A, rendered for the periods 20 December 1992 through 14 January
1994, and 15 January 1994 through 14 January 1995, be, and hereby are,
declared void and removed from her records.

           b.  The Air Force Commendation Medal, with 2nd Oak Leaf
Cluster, for the period of 3 March 1993 to 29 February 1996, be
upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal, with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster.

           c.  The Meritorious Service Medal, for the period 2 March
1996 to 31 October 2000, be changed to reflect 4th Oak Leaf Cluster,
rather than 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster.

      It is further directed that her records, as corrected be
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a
Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1997C Lieutenant Colonel
Central Selection Board and for any subsequent selection boards for
which the above Officer Performance Reports were a matter of record.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency