RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02317
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00; 111.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports for the following periods  be  removed
from his records:

        a.  30 Jan 98 to 27 Jan 99

        b.  28 Jan 99 to 27 Jan 00

        c.  28 Jan 00 to 27 Jan 01

He be considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) beginning  with  the  CY03A  (5  May  03)  Major
Central Selection Board.

He be reinstated to active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His job performance as a chaplain  was  rated  on  his  past  marriage
issues rather than his actual job performance in violation of AFI  36-
2406, paragraphs 3.7.17 and 3.7.7.  Subsequently, he was twice  passed
over for promotion.

The bias he suffered on the contested reports carried over to his next
assignment and affected his subsequent ratings.

In support of his appeal, applicant  provides  a  four-page  statement
with 45 attachments giving the background of his Air Force career  and
the circumstances leading to the contested OPRs.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 30 Jan 98.  He was considered but
not selected for promotion to the grade of  major  by  the  CY03A  and
CY03B Major Central Promotion Boards.  The  applicant  was  discharged
effective 31 Aug 04 for nonselection, permanent promotion.

A resume of the applicant’s  OPRs  since  entry  into  the  Air  Force
follows:

        Closeout Date                   Overall Rating

        *27 Jan 99                       Meets standards
        *27 Jan 00                       Meets Standards
        *27 Jan 01                       Meets Standards
        #31 Aug 01                       Meets Standards
        #31 Aug 02           Report removed (AF Form 77)
       ##16 May 03                       Meets Standards
         16 May 04                       Meets Standards

      *  Contested OPRs
      #  With contested OPRs removed, only reports on file  for  CY03A
selection board
      ## Additional OPR on file for CY03B selection board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.    The
applicant filed an IG complaint on 23 Oct 02 against his rater on  his
OPR closing 31 Aug 02.  This rater was not  in  the  rating  chain  on
either of the contested reports listed above.  The applicant  contends
the bias treatment he received on the contested reports  carried  over
to the rating on his OPR closing 31 Aug 02,  which  he  filed  the  IG
complaint  over.   The  IG  investigated  the  applicant’s  claims  of
whistleblower reprisal and concurred that  adverse  personnel  actions
were  taken  against  him  in  reprisal   for   making   a   protected
communication.  The applicant did not file a complaint nor did the  IG
investigate any bias actions on the part of  the  evaluators  for  the
OPRs closing 27 Jan 99, 27 Jan 00, and 27 Jan 01.  The  applicant  has
not provided factual evidence the evaluators on the contested  reports
were biased or even connected to the IG investigation he  later  filed
against a different rater.

The applicant contends the contested reports rated his job performance
with a negative bias  based  on  his  marriage  issues  of  the  past.
However, an examination of the reports does not reveal any  statements
relating to his marriage issues.  The only evidence he does provide is
that his rating chain considered his marital issues when making  their
Conditional  Reserve  Status  (CRS)  recommendations  as  there   were
concerns  the  applicant’s  sponsor  for  his   Air   Force   Chaplain
certification might withdraw his endorsement  (based  on  his  marital
issues), causing him to pursue another endorser in order  to  maintain
his certification as an Air Force chaplain.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAH concurs with the recommendations made by AFPC/DPPPEP.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates in his response to the Air  Force  evaluations
he strongly disagrees with their  recommendations.   He  contends  the
evaluations missed the mark by not seeing  the  obvious  contradiction
between the poor OPRs written by his  rating  chain  versus  the  very
positive letters written on his  behalf  by  the  unit  commanders  he
directly supported.  He states they also disregarded part of  AFI  36-
2406, paragraph 3.7.17 by only utilizing  part  of  its  content  when
making their  opinion.   The  applicant  states  the  reference  tells
evaluators  to  refrain  from  considering,  not  just  including  the
prohibited information.  He  states  AFPC/DPPPEP  totally  disregarded
paragraph 3.7.7, Inappropriate Evaluator Considerations and  Comments,
specifically considering “… conduct based  on  unreliable  information
….”

The applicant contends that in spite of the negative  OPR  ratings  he
received, he has written  documents  showing  a  positive  performance
level that directly contradicts the OPRs.   He  lists  four  areas  in
support of this contention.  He opines the evaluation  further  missed
the mark by stating no factual evidence was provided to  show  a  bias
during the timeframe of the contested OPRs and that  no  evidence  was
provided to show a connection between the contested OPRs  and  the  IG
complaint he later filed.  He references a letter, dated  16  Jun  04,
written by the former wing commander  of  the  unit  he  received  the
contested OPRs,  which  extols  his  performance  and  that  the  weak
Conditional Reserve Status comments were based on a possible change in
marital status.  The applicant states the rater that made the poor CRS
recommendation wrote two of the contested  OPRs  and  the  rater  that
started the negative trend and who later  had  six  counts  of  sexual
harassment substantiated against him wrote the other report.

The applicant provides information on why he  believes  the  rater  he
filed the IG complaint against was biased and how it was connected  to
his prior assignment.

The applicant also provides a statement of support from his wife along
with  many  of  the  same  documents  submitted  with   his   original
application.

The applicant’s 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 timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request
to remove three contested OPRs from his record, to consider  him  for
promotion to the grade of  major  by  special  selection  board,  and
reinstatement to active duty.  In making this determination, we  note
a seeming contradiction between the tenor of the contested  OPRs  and
the letters of support  the  applicant  has  provided  regarding  his
performance of duties.  While individuals outside  the  rating  chain
prepared several of the letters, they did receive direct support from
the applicant in his duties as  a  chaplain  and  were  in  a  unique
position to comment on the level of his  performance.   Additionally,
we note the letter of support written  on  his  behalf  by  the  wing
commander who also  was  the  reviewer  on  two  of  the  reports  in
question.  The wing commander states that  weak  recommendations  for
Conditional Reserve Status  were  made  because  of  the  applicant’s
marital problems rather than his  duty  performance.   The  applicant
believes these reports were the direct cause of his nonselection  for
promotion to major.  His speculation alone though is not sufficiently
compelling for us to come to this conclusion.   However,  we  believe
enough doubt has been created to warrant giving him  the  benefit  of
the doubt and to correct the record as he has requested.  In removing
the three contested OPRs from the applicant’s record, we note he will
only  have  one  Air  Force  evaluation   on   file   for   promotion
consideration by SSB for the CY03A selection board and  only  two  on
file for consideration by the CY03B selection board.   With  such  an
abbreviated record of performance, it  is  questionable  whether  the
applicant will have a fair and equitable  opportunity  for  promotion
selection.  As such, we believe an additional measure  of  relief  is
warranted  to  provide  the  applicant  an  opportunity  to  build  a
reasonable  record  of  performance  for   promotion   consideration.
Therefore, we recommend  the  applicant’s  records  be  corrected  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.  He was not considered for promotion to the grade of  major
by the CY03A and CY03B Major Central Selection Boards.

       b.  He was not discharged from all appointments on  31  August
2004 but was continued on active duty  and  ordered  in  a  permanent
change of station (PCS) status to his home of record pending  further
orders.

       c.  The Company Grade Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR),  AF
Form 707B, closing 27 January 1999, be declared void and removed from
his records.

       d.  The Company Grade Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR),  AF
Form 707B, closing 27 January 2000, be declared void and removed from
his records.

       e.  The Company Grade Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR),  AF
Form 707B, closing 27 January 2001, be declared void and removed from
his records.

It is further recommended that any nonselections for promotion to the
grade of major in the primary zone prior to receiving  a  minimum  of
two OPRs with at least 250 days  of  supervision,  in  the  grade  of
captain, be set aside.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number  BC-2004-
02317 in Executive Session on 11 January 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

All members voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAH, dated 10 Nov 04.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 04.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Dec 04, w/atch.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2004-02317


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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

            a.  He was not considered for promotion to the  grade  of
major by the CY03A and CY03B Major Central Selection Boards.

            b.  He was not discharged from  all  appointments  on  31
August 2004 but was  continued  on  active  duty  and  ordered  in  a
permanent change of station  (PCS)  status  to  his  home  of  record
pending further orders.

            c.  The Company Grade Officer Performance  Report  (OPR),
AF Form 707B, closing 27 January 1999, be, and  hereby  is,  declared
void and removed from his records.

            d.  The Company Grade Officer Performance  Report  (OPR),
AF Form 707B, closing 27 January 2000, be, and  hereby  is,  declared
void and removed from his records.

            e.  The Company Grade Officer Performance  Report  (OPR),
AF Form 707B, closing 27 January 2001, be, and  hereby  is,  declared
void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that any nonselections for promotion  to
the grade of major in the primary zone prior to receiving  a  minimum
of two OPRs with at least 250 days of supervision, in  the  grade  of
captain, be set aside.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency