RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02441
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  EUGENE R. FIDELL

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 JANUARY 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  records  be  corrected  by  removing  the  references  to  her
excessive work on her Calendar Year (CY)  02B  (2 Dec 02)  (P0602B)
Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) Promotion Recommendation Form
(PRF)  and  Professional  Military   Education   (PME)   worksheet;
modifying her PRFs for the P0602B and CY03B (27  Oct  03)  (P0603B)
Colonel CSBs, to include critical stratification  information  such
as military awards, and to include a Definitely Promote (DP) bottom
line overall recommendation; recommending to  the  Chief  of  Staff
that she be issued immediate orders to an appropriate  in-residence
Senior Service School (SSS) and be considered for a command billet,
and that her  corrected  record  be  considered  for  promotion  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the P0602B and P0603B boards.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant’s counsel states her record should be  corrected  because
her P0602B PRF and PME Worksheet contain inappropriate, sexist, and
inaccurate comments that prejudiced her right to fair consideration
for in-residence SSS and promotion to the grade of colonel.

She was prejudiced by the P0602B  and  P0603B  PRFs  because  these
reports failed to  disclose  that  she  had  received  the  Defense
Security Cooperation Agency Director’s Award in 2002,  as  well  as
other critical  stratification.   She  believes  that  due  to  the
developing trend of prejudicial actions, it is very likely she  was
denied fair consideration to compete for a Communications  Squadron
Commander billet.

In support of applicant’s appeal,  counsel  provided  his  expanded
comments, copies of the contested  PME/AFIT/RTFB/Officer  Worksheet
(original draft and finalized version), the contested PRFs, and the
Nomination for DSCA Director’s Award.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a Regular Air Force officer serving in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel with an effective  date  and  date  of  rank  of
1 Feb 99.  Applicant was considered below-the-promotion zone  (BPZ)
by the CY02B (3 Dec 02) (P0602B) and in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) by
the CY03B (27 Oct 03)  (P0603B)  CSBs  and  was  not  selected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile for  the  last
five reporting periods follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      18 Dec 99  Meets Standards (MS)
      18 Dec 00  MS
      18 Dec 01  MS
      18 Dec 02  MS
      15 Oct 03  MS

The DOD Directorate of Investigation of Senior Officials determined
that the applicant was unable to  provide  any  specific,  credible
information indicating that  her  senior  rater  was  motivated  by
gender discrimination in his preparation and submission of her PRFs
and PME/SSS application.  The evidence failed to establish that her
senior rater acted on the basis of discrimination grounded on  sex,
or that his comments on her  performance  were  based  on  anything
other than her “merit, fitness, and capability,” as required by the
DOD and  Air  Force  Military  Equal  Opportunity  (MEO)  standards
(Exhibit C).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
Applicant did not submit an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB).  Applicant alleges that  the  PRF  rendered  for  the
P0603B CSB contained a sexist comment.  The  statement:  “Redefines
“dedication” sent her home after  a  month  of  14  hr  days,  0200
telecons and no sleep” is not deemed a sexist remark.  She does not
provide any evidence to substantiate why this would be considered a
sexist comment.

She contends that her  P0602B  and  P0603B  PRFs  omitted  critical
stratification and missing awards.   The  senior  rater  bears  the
responsibility of selecting what information is to be  included  in
the PRFs; and what to leave out; which portions  of  the  officer’s
career to concentrate on, and which portions are supported  by  the
record.  She should have received copies of the PRFs  approximately
30 days before the CSB convened.  This would  have  provided  ample
time to work with her  senior  rater  to  request  any  changes  or
corrections to her PRF.  She does not state what corrective actions
she took prior to the board convening.

In summary, she is requesting the PRF that  was  rendered  for  the
P0602B be re-written to remove the sexist comment and include  more
stratification and the P0603B be re-written to  also  include  more
stratification.  However, she did not provide enough  justification
to support her request.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed this application and recommended  denial  to
modify her PRFs and subsequently consider her  record  by  an  SSB.
They deferred to the advisory from the Officer Development  Branch,
which  states,  in  part,  that  without   confirmation   from   an
investigation, they cannot determine that the worksheet contains an
error.  If the investigation finds that the statements in  question
were incorrect and unfair, they do not recommend  that  she  attend
SSS at this point.  Instead, it is recommended that she be  granted
a permanent operational deferment from school  since  she  is  well
outside of the window to attend in-residence SSS.

A complete copy of the evaluations, with attachment, is at  Exhibit
D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  reiterated  her  original  contentions  and  states  the
advisory opinions do not refute her  prior  submission,  which  was
fully supported by pertinent documentation.

Applicant’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.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, after a thorough review of the
evidence of record and that  provided  in  support  of  applicant’s
appeal, we found no evidence that the senior rater, who was  tasked
with  the  responsibility  of  assessing   the   applicant’s   duty
performance and demonstrated promotion potential, was motivated  by
gender  discrimination  in  his  preparation   of   her   Promotion
Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the CY02B and CY03B Colonel Central
Selection Boards and the contested Professional Military  Education
(PME) Worksheet,  or  that  the  comments  contained  therein  were
inappropriate, sexist or inaccurate.  Additionally,  we  note  that
the same issues raised in this application were investigated by the
DoD Directorate for Investigation of Senior Officials  and  it  was
determined that the evidence failed to establish  that  applicant’s
senior rater acted on the basis of discrimination grounded on  sex,
or that his comments on her  performance  were  based  on  anything
other than her “merit, fitness, and capability,” as required by the
DOD and  Air  Force  Military  Equal  Opportunity  standards.   The
appropriate Air Force offices have addressed the  issues  presented
by the applicant and we are in agreement with  their  opinions  and
recommendations.  Therefore, we adopt their rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice.  In view of the foregoing, and in  the  absence
of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on the applicant’s requests.

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-02441 in Executive  Session  on  10  May  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  DoD IG Report, withdrawn.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Dec 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Feb 05.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair