RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-01765
		INDEX CODE 131.10  102.03
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be afforded a special records review regarding his promotability to the grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC) on the Aug 67 promotion cycle and he be promoted retroactively to LTC, or at least to LTC in the Retired Officer Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) closing 7 Aug 67 was unnecessary and destroyed his career by preventing his promotion to LTC and award of a Regular commission. His previous rater informed him that he had been submitted for promotion and a Regular commission. However, the base personnel chief wanted to move a friend into his [the applicant’s] position and contrived to have him reassigned to another job. The previous rater then had the new rater render a downgraded OER. Over some 31 years, the hurt of perceived injustice has tormented him.

A copy of his complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was a major assigned to the 3345th Air Base Group in Chanute AFB, IL as the Chief, Base Operations and Training Division.

He was considered but not selected for LTC by the FY68 (20 Sep 67), FY69 (16 Sep 68) and FY70 (21 Jul 69) temporary LTC selection boards. 

The applicant's OERs from 10 Aug 62 through 15 Jun 69 reflect the following: 

		PERIOD ENDING		EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
		  13 Mar 63				8-4
		  28 Feb 65				7-2
		  14 Dec 65				7-3
		  30 Jun 66				7-3
		  16 Apr 67				8-3
		   7 Aug 67				7-2 (FY68 Top Report)
		  25 Jul 68				8-3 (FY69 Top Report)
		  15 Jun 69				8-3 (FY70 Top Report

The highest rating under this evaluation system was 9-4.  The applicant's earlier reports do not have "firewalled" performance factors and the overall ratings are not in the highest category.

On 28 May 68, the Officer Personnel Record Review Board advised the applicant that his request to void the OER ending 7 Aug 67 was denied.  The applicant had objected to the content of the OER and contended that the 113 days of supervision were actually reduced to 59 due to his and his rater's periods of leave and temporary duty (TDY).  None of the leave or TDY periods were 30 days or longer. 

The applicant retired in the grade of major on 1 May 1970 with 20 years and 4 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed the appeal and provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed the appeal and provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a response, indicating he is not asking that the 7 Aug 67 OER be voided. He wants to be promoted to LTC retroactively. He believes he should have been awarded a Regular Air Force (RegAF) commission and that, due to a possible administrative error, his last two OERs “for promotion cycles" FY69 and FY70 did not go before the promotion boards. He argues that his records warrant promotion to LTC.

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit F. 

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPO explains that not all RegAF appointment quotas were used to fill vacancies because of record quality.  Comments by his OER evaluators show that they believed he had a chance, based on his records, for promotion and RegAF appointment. However, even officers with more competitive records were not all promoted or awarded RegAF appointment. DPPPO confirms that the last two OERs for promotion cycles FY69 and FY70 did meet the boards.  DPPPO also invokes laches, asserting that the applicant's unreasonable delay regarding a 34-year old contention greatly complicates the Air Force's ability to determine the merits of this case.  Denial is still recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts that when an officer becomes eligible for promotion, the folder is put into the "consideration for promotion stack." He believes his file inadvertently was not placed into the "consideration stack." He reiterates his belief that his qualifications were so superior that he should have been selected LTC.

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice to warrant direct promotion or promotion consideration through the Special Selection Board (SSB) process. Contrary to the applicant's apparent assertions, the respective LTC promotion boards reviewed his selection folder, including his last two OERs.  Further, he has provided no evidence demonstrating that his records were so superior that he should have been selected for LTC and a Regular commission when originally considered, or that they were unjustly and erroneously rendered to warrant direct promotion or SSB consideration now.  We sympathize with the disappointment the applicant has apparently carried with him throughout these many years; however, neither the documentation he provides nor the evidence of record sustains any of his allegations. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice and we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 6 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 26 Jul 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Aug 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Sep 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 19 Dec 01.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Dec 01.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jan 02.