RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01510
            INDEX NUMBER:  130.00; 111.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  Gary R. Myers

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period  5
Feb 99 through 4 Feb 00 be voided and removed from his records.

He be considered by special selection board (SSB) for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board and any subsequent boards as applicable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through his counsel, applicant asserts  that  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) previously denied the applicant’s appeal  to  void
the contested OPR and did not provide any specific  justification  for
its  denial.    The   ERAB   failed   to   address   the   significant
representations made in the applicant’s submission to that body.

In support of his  appeal,  counsel  provides  the  complete  previous
submission to the ERAB, which made the following assertions  regarding
the OPR closing 4 Feb 00:

        a.  The OPR was sub par and designed  to  be  a  feint  praise
career-ending device without being a referral OPR.

        b.  The rater in his narrative  portion  failed  to  urge  any
professional military  education  (PME)  and  failed  to  mention  the
applicant’s capacity for greater responsibility.

        c.  The additional rater made no mention of any PME and merely
stated, “Continue to challenge with greater responsibility.”

Applicant’s counsel provides the background of events that  he  claims
led  to  the  applicant’s  contested  OPR.   He  provides   supporting
statements to support their contention that  applicant’s  rater  wrote
the contested OPR from a biased perspective.

The complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a Chaplain serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  His Total Active Military Service  Date  is  15  Aug  84.   He
entered active duty  on  29  Aug  88.   He  was  considered,  but  not
selected, for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the
CY00A, CY01B, CY02B, and CY03A Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection
Boards.  The applicant submitted an application to the ERAB on  8  Dec
03 with the same requests as indicated above.  On 5 Apr 04,  the  ERAB
denied the applicant’s appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  void  his
OPR closing 4 Feb 00.   The  rater  has  the  responsibility  to  make
recommendations for PME or increased responsibility, but they are  not
mandatory comments that must be made on a report.   A  report  is  not
erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a
nonselection for promotion or may impact future  promotion  or  career
opportunities.  The letters of support provided by  the  applicant  do
not directly relate to the contested OPR.

The applicant contends that a change of rating official  (CRO)  should
have been accomplished.  However, the applicant has not  provided  any
documentation to prove a CRO should have been done  or  if  there  was
enough supervision.

The applicant contends the Critical Incident Stress Management  (CISM)
duty he was performing is not a Chaplain duty.  AFPC/DPPPE  references
AFI 44-153 as including a chaplain in the makeup of the team.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  for  SSB
consideration since AFPC/DPPPE has recommended that the contested  OPR
not be voided.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel responded to the Air Force  evaluations.   Counsel
states that the principal advisory prepared by AFPC/DPPPE is  off  the
mark for the following reasons:

        a.  They never suggested that a chaplain should not serve in a
CISM capacity, rather, that the CISM chaplain operative should  report
to the wing commander.

        b.  They demonstrated bias and did not base their claim solely
upon the lack of recommendations for PME or future responsibilities.

        c.  They showed that the applicant’s  prior  rater  supervised
him far in excess of 120 days and that there should have been a change
of rater OPR.

Counsel  opines  that  the  advisory  opinion  reflects  a   lack   of
understanding of the case and that relief should be granted.

Counsel’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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the
victim of an  error  or  injustice.   While  we  note  the  areas  of
dissatisfaction with the OPR pointed out by counsel, we do  not  find
that the OPR violates Air Force directives or, based on the  evidence
of record,  constitutes  an  injustice.   Additionally,  insufficient
evidence has been provided to support counsel’s contention  that  the
applicant should have received  a  change  of  rater  report,  which,
subsequently, would have changed the period of supervision  indicated
on the contested report.  Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 considered Docket Number  BC-2004-
01510 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. John E.B. Smith, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 Jul 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 04.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 5 Aug 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair