RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00307
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 Jul 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The "weak comments" be  removed  from  his  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR) rendered for the period 1 Jul 03 through 8 May 04.

2.  His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM),  third  oak  leaf  cluster,  be
upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The weak OPR and AFCM are unjust based on his 4-year history of very  strong
OPRs,  five  MAJCOM  awards,  high  recommendations  to  competitive  higher
education programs, and an operational deferment request to extend his  tour
from 2003 to 2004 due to his "unique qualifications."  His  record  shows  a
consistent pattern of high praise for the level of work produced and he  was
never provided any negative  feedback  that  would  indicate  his  work  was
unacceptable.  He believes his award and OPR  are  unjust  as  a  result  of
informing his chain of command of the unprofessional  conduct  displayed  by
his direct supervisor.  Unbeknown to him, his supervisor portrayed him in  a
negative manner to the commander.   He  was  not  aware  of  the  derogatory
allegations made against his character and  was  never  given  a  chance  to
address his supervisor's concerns or accusations.  The  derogatory  comments
did not come to light until he inquired  as  to  why  he  was  not  given  a
competitive OPR.  He provided a memo which he believes supports  his  belief
that the OPR and award were written to make him uncompetitive  in  the  next
colonel's board,  but  at  the  same  time  not  overt  enough  to  force  a
justification of comments.  In addition, applicant contends  his  supervisor
recommended him for the Air Force Pharmacist of  the  Year  Award.   He  can
only suspect that his supervisor nominated him  for  this  award  while  the
retiring  division  chief  was  writing  his  OPR.   Applicant  asserts  the
hostilities unfortunately resumed after the division chief's retirement.

In support of his request, applicant provided copies  of  OPRs  rendered  at
Brooks AFB, the contested AFCM, recommendation  letters,  email  communiqués
and memos, and documentation associated  with  his  Inspector  General  (IG)
appeal.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted  from  the  personnel  data  system  reflects  applicant  was
appointed a second lieutenant on  30  Dec  85  and  has  been  progressively
promoted to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel,  having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 03.  He will  be  in-the  primary
zone (IPZ) eligible for promotion to the grade of colonel in  calendar  year
2009.  He is currently serving on active duty as Chief,  Pharmacy  Services.


The following is a resume of his recent OPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL ASSESSMENT

            08 May 05  Meets Standards (MS)
            08 May 04             MS (Contested Report)
            30 Jun 03             MS
            30 Jun 02             MS
            30 Jun 01             MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states according to a  memo  provided
by HQ AFMC/IG dated 10 Aug 05, the IG determined that the personnel  actions
were not based on reprisal.  Therefore, the  OPR  was  not  completed  in  a
"weak"  manner  due  to  reprisal.   The  applicant  fails  to  state   what
information  on  the  report  made  it  "weak".   He  highlighted  the  word
"consider" on the documents provided.  "Consider" is not a  word  derogatory
in nature.  The evaluators are simply stating  he  should  be  selected  for
MAJCOM  and  SDE.   The  evaluators  placed   a   command   push   and   PME
recommendation on the report, which is more than required  on  completing  a
performance report.  There is no evidence any information on the  report  is
inaccurate and it seems he is just  unhappy  with  the  way  his  report  is
written.  It is the evaluator's responsibility  to  complete  a  performance
report as they deem appropriate.  Some disagreements are likely to occur  in
worker-supervisor relationships since a worker must abide by a  supervisor's
policies and decisions.  Personnel who do not perform at expected  standards
or require close  supervision  may  believe  that  evaluator  is  personally
biased; however, the conflict is usually professional rather than  personal.
 He has not provided any  statements  from  his  rating  chain  or  official
documentation to prove a personality conflict existed.

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR states the applicant was informed  that
a recommendation had  been  submitted  into  channels.   The  AFCM  was  the
decoration he received  and  the  approval  authority  is  standing  by  his
decision.

The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that based on the current  USAF/SG  OPR/EPR  Guide,  the
word "consider" is specifically mentioned as a way to  denote  a  derogatory
message for those who "earn and deserve it".   The  guide  states  that  the
word "consider" is to be used to reflect a  person's  mediocre  performance.
The guide also states that "if any bullet contains  derogatory  or  negative
language, it becomes an automatic referral report".   In  any  case  he  was
never provided an opportunity to respond as  required  by  a  referral  OPR.
Applicant believes the IG determination of no-retribution  was  not  correct
and should be reevaluated based on a document produced by the commander.

His 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  The applicant's  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, after thoroughly reviewing  the  documentation  provided  in
support of his appeal, we find no evidence of an error in this case and  are
not persuaded that he has been the victim of an injustice.   In  the  rating
process, evaluators are required to assess a ratee's  performance,  honestly
and to the best of their ability.  In cases  of  this  nature,  we  are  not
inclined to disturb the judgments of commanding  officers  absent  a  strong
showing  of  abuse  of  discretionary  authority.   Other   than   his   own
assertions, we are not persuaded by the evidence presented that  his  rating
chain abused their authority.  Further,  evidence  has  not  been  presented
which would lead us to believe that his commander acted  inappropriately  in
deciding what type of medal was warranted or  that  improper  considerations
were made in rendering that decision.  While  evidence  provided  shows  the
applicant's accomplishments are commendable, we believe that commanders  are
in a position to make the  determination  as  to  whether  or  not  award  a
particular medal, or the type and level of such  award.   In  spite  of  his
assertions, we see no evidence, which would persuade us to believe that  the
decision to award him an AFCM instead of an  MSM  was  based  upon  anything
other than  the  commander's  exercising  of  his  discretionary  authority.
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
their conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.
Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
00307 in Executive Session on 25 Apr 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 15 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, not dated.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Apr 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  DoD IG, Report of Investigation - WITHDRAWN




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair