RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01662
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be considered for Intermediate Service School (ISS) candidacy in-residence.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was an Air National Guard (ANG) member when she was considered for promotion to major.  Therefore, she was not considered for candidacy.  The ANG does not offer “candidacy”--all are considered a candidate.  She has researched the option of a Special Selection Board (SSB) but that requires that she be considered under the same standards as her peers on that board.  Since she is now on active duty, she does not have a peer group against whom she can fairly compete.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of her separation documents, and a letter pertaining to selection for extended active duty.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assignment Programs and Procedures Division, AFPC/DPAP, reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPAP noted that the applicant was selected for major while serving in the Air National Guard (ANG).  ANG promotees are not identified as Professional Military Education (PME) candidates during the promotion board process.  They are identified as candidates based on the commander’s recommendation and availability.

DPAP indicated that the ANG leadership considered but did not select the applicant to attend ISS in-residence upon promotion to major.  She was not identified as an ISS candidate upon entering active duty from the ANG.  According to DPAP, she is now eligible to compete annually for ISS selection as a non-candidate.

A complete copy of the DPAP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response and additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  We note that the applicant was a former ANG member who voluntarily applied to return to active duty.  However, prior to returning to active duty she was selected for promotion to the grade of major.  She contends that as a major selectee, she was unable to apply for ISS before separating from the ANG.  Therefore, she now requests that she be considered for ISS candidacy as an active duty officer.  She believes she should be afforded the same opportunity to be considered for ISS candidacy as all other captains who meet a major board.  After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that any corrective action is warranted.  ISS candidacy is determined during the major promotion board for active duty personnel where only a limited number of promotees are selected as ISS candidates.  Since she was an ANG asset when she was selected for promotion to major, her consideration for ISS candidacy as an active duty officer was not warranted.  We think at this point it is worth noting that even if the applicant had been considered for ISS candidacy, she still may not have been selected as a candidate.  Also, being selected as a candidate does not guarantee selection to attend ISS in-residence, which is determined by the ISS selection board where only the best qualified are selected.  Finally, we note that the applicant still can compete for ISS as a non-candidate if she is nominated by her management level.  In view of the foregoing, 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 probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 27 Sep 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAP, dated 31 Jul 01.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Aug 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Sep 01, w/atchs.