RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2000-00391
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In a DD Form 149 dated 7 Feb 00, applicant requests the following:

        a.  He be reinstated to active duty and promoted to captain.

        b.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) written on him by his
former squadron commander and  considered  by  his  captain  promotion
board be voided.

Because the applicant’s appeal did not specify the exact OPR he wanted
voided, his application was returned for clarification.

In a DD Form 149 dated 10 May 00,  the  applicant  requests  the  OPRs
rendered on him for the following periods be voided:

        a.  15 May 96 through 12 Sep 96.

        b.  13 Sep 96 through 19 Dec 96.

An Air Force advisory was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Jul 00.  The
applicant, subsequently, requested his case be temporarily  withdrawn.
The applicant submitted  a  third  DD  Form  149,  dated   15  Jul  04
requesting the following:

        a.  All OPRs rendered  on  him  while  assigned  to  the  89th
Medical Squadron be voided and removed from his record.

        b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PFR)  rendered  on  him
while assigned to the 89th Medical Squadron be voided.

On 19 Aug 04, the Board requested the applicant clarify which OPRs  he
is seeking to have voided, which PRF he is requesting be  voided,  and
whether or not he is requesting promotion consideration to captain  by
a special selection board (SSB) since he had submitted three  separate
DD Form 149s.   The  applicant  requested  an  extension  of  time  to
respond.  Instead, his case was temporarily withdrawn.  The  applicant
subsequently provided the following responses to the  questions  asked
in a letter dated    26 Oct 04:

        a.  The OPR rendered on him for the period 15 May  96  through
12 Sep 96 be voided and removed from his record.

        b.  The OPR rendered on him for the period 13 Sep  96  through
19 Dec 96 be voided and removed from his record.

        c.  It appears the applicant is also requesting  a  third  OPR
rendered on him with a 12 Mar 97 date be voided and removed  from  his
record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His past OPRs written by his former commander support  his  contention
he has always consistently performed his duties at the highest level.

His approximately 15 years of Army service provide a reference to  his
character, maturity, dedication and leadership.

It is in the best interest of the Air Force for him to get  a  re-look
for promotion because he is a separation  pay  recipient  and  by  law
incurs a three-year service commitment in the Reserves.

He only has 15 good years of points for retirement.

It is in the best interest of the Air Force  to  retain  a  qualified,
dedicated professional.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies of OPRs written on
him by a different rating chain than those he is appealing, a copy  of
the IG complaint he  filed,  letters  of  recommendation,  letters  of
appreciation, and a copy of his record of  performance  while  in  the
Army.

The  applicant’s  complete  submissions,  with  attachments,  are   at
Exhibits A, D, and J.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve  of  the  Air
Force, Biomedical Services Corps, on 26 Mar  93.   He  entered  active
duty on 15 May 96 as a first lieutenant.  He was  considered  and  not
selected for promotion to captain by the CY96E captain promotion board
(12 Nov 96) with a  “Do  Not  Promote”  promotion  recommendation  and
considered and not selected by the CY97B captain promotion board  with
a “Promote Recommendation.”  The applicant filed an appeal on 9 May 97
with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB)  requesting  the  OPR
rendered on him for the period 13 Sep 96 through 19 Dec 96 be declared
void and removed from his record.  The  ERAB  denied  the  applicant’s
appeal.  The applicant was released from active duty on 31 Oct 97  due
to  his  nonselection  for  promotion.   He  received  $30,588.48   in
separation pay.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s appeal.  In support  of
his appeal, applicant provides letters  of  support  from  individuals
outside his rating chain.  They do not believe these individuals  were
in a better position to evaluate the applicant’s duty performance than
those specifically assigned that responsibility.   The  applicant  has
not provided statements from his evaluators.  Without such statements,
they can only conclude the  OPRs  being  challenged  are  accurate  as
written.

The applicant also provided the Summary Report of Investigation (SROI)
from the IG complaint he filed.   The  IG  did  not  substantiate  the
applicant’s  claims  of  racial  discrimination,  although  they   did
indicate that the disparate treatment the applicant received  resulted
in an environment where racial discrimination was perceived.   The  IG
also concluded the  “Do  Not  Promote”  recommendation  the  applicant
received  was  based  on  the  applicant’s  marginal  performance  and
undetermined potential.  The complaints the applicant  lodged  against
his evaluator were not of  such  magnitude  the  evaluator  could  not
render a fair and unbiased evaluation.

AFPC/DPPP indicates they  returned  the  applicant’s  original  appeal
package and suggested he appeal his “Do Not Promote” PRF for the CY96E
promotion board.   The  applicant  indicates  he  cannot  get  written
support from his senior rater.  Since he could not offer any evaluator
support as required by AFI  36-2401,  they  recommend  the  Board  not
direct a reaccomplished PRF.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant’s appeal be denied.   He  did  not
identify any specific errors in the discharge processing  nor  provide
facts that warrant his reinstatement to active duty.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
7 Jul 00 for review and comment within 30 days.  In a letter  dated  5
Aug 00, the applicant requested his  case  be  temporarily  withdrawn.
The next correspondence received from the applicant was in the form of
a new DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 04.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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 opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  While some of  the  findings  in
the IG report  are  disturbing,  there  is  insufficient  evidence  to
conclude the contested evaluations rendered on the  applicant  are  in
error.  In fact, there does not appear to be a significant qualitative
difference between the contested reports and those rendered previously
on the applicant by his Air Force Reserve unit.  We took note  of  the
favorable communications  provided  by  the  applicant  regarding  his
service with the Army and the quality of care he provided  to  several
patients during the timeframe of the contested  OPRs.   However,  even
after factoring in the inappropriate actions and conduct  by  some  of
the  applicant’s  co-workers  and  rating  chain,  there   is   simply
insufficient evidence to support his direct promotion to  captain  and
reinstatement to active duty.  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 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-2000-
00391 in Executive Session on 22 February 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. James E. Short, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 28 Mar 00.
    Exhibit D.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 13 Jun 00,
                w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Jun 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jul 00.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Aug 00, w/atch.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Aug 00.
    Exhibit J.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 04, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair