RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01907

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The three Special Review Boards (SRBs) held for the Fiscal Years 1997 through 1999 (FY97 through FY99) Air Force Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Selection Boards be reviewed and promotion eligibility correction.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her senior raters were never contacted to prepare Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the SRBs; she was never provided an opportunity to review her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the FY97 SRB; and, the OSB for the FY98 SRB was incomplete.

The applicant states that the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) told her they did not know who her senior raters were at the time of the PV boards and did not attempt to contact them.  As a result, she notified her senior raters for the preparation of her PRFs for each PV board.  Despite asking many times for a copy of her OSB, she never was provided a copy prior to the board.  In addition, the fax copy of the OSB she received for the FY98 SRB was not legible and did not include a separate entry for points received from 27 May 1997 to 26 May 1998.  Furthermore, throughout the SRB process she did not receive any guidance or help from ARPC.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty (Active Guard/Reserve (AGR)) in the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank of 1 September 1999.

On 14 January 2000, the Board considered and granted applicant’s request that she be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel by the FY97, FY98, and FY99 PV boards. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C.

During the week of 19 through 24 June 2000, three SRB were conducted in conjunction with the FY01 Reserve of the Air Force Line and Health Professions Captain and Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards.  In the opinion of a majority of the voting members, the applicant should not have been recommended for promotion by the FY97, FY98, and FY99 Air Force Reserve Line Lieutenant Colonel PV Selection Board (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied.  ARPC/DPB states, in part, that three separate SRBs were convened, comprised of 18 different senior officers, who came to the same conclusion not to promote the applicant.  Using the “whole person” concept and comparing the applicant’s record to 30 other officers in the SRB process (10 benchmark records at each SRB), the board members decided she had not clearly demonstrated the potential to assume a higher grade in 1996 (FY97 board), 1997 (FY98 board), or in the 1998 (FY99 board).  Both the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Defense have approved the results of the SRBs.  No improprieties existed that could cause question to the procedures or results of the three SRBs.  Furthermore, no errors in material content of the selection record have been presented.

The ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that the evaluation failed to answer any of her issues.  Throughout the three SRBs, she never received requested support or direction from ARPC.  Although the Board directed that ARPC provide her senior rater the opportunity to prepare a PRF for each of the SRBs, they never contacted her senior rater.  In addition, she did not receive an OSB for the first SRB; the OSB prepared for the second SRB was illegible and missing a separate entry for points received during the period 27 May 1979 to 26 May 1998 and PME data; and she never received notification regarding the outcome of any of the SRBs.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the Board’s request for additional view and comments ARPC/DPB states, in part, the following:

	a.	During an initial telephone conversation with ARPC/DPBS, the applicant indicated that she was on a limited recall active duty tour in the same locations as her senior raters and would obtain the PRFs herself.  Since she volunteered to obtain the PRFs and timeliness was important, there was no reason for ARPC to duplicate her efforts.  Her PRFs did arrive in time for each board and were placed in her selection folder.

	b.	ARPC faxed the applicant on numerous times, a copy of the OSB for the FY97 board, but the applicant felt it was a very poor quality.

	c.	Since the FY98 board convened in June 1997, a data entry for participation from May 1997 through May 1998 was not possible.

	d.	An OSB did not exist for the FY97, FY98, and FY99 boards; therefore, they were created to match her career, as it should have appeared to the directed SRBs.

ARPC/DPB also states that the applicant’s record was not strong enough to compete favorably at each of the SRBs.  Specifically, they note the following:

	a.	The lack of Professional Military Education (PME) was a significant detriment considering that all the benchmark records for the FY97 SRB had completed both levels of PME.

	b.	The lack of completion of Squadron Officer School (SOS), lack of a Masters degree, and the second lieutenant Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) combined to provide several discriminators separating her record from the benchmark selects for the FY98 and FY99 SRBs and placing her record with the nonselects.

The ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s states that although ARPC indicates that her PRFs and OERs/OPRs were not strong enough to overcome the discriminating factors to obtain promotion, every OPR she has received since 1991 had a general officer endorsement.  Whereas, the benchmark records were predominately endorsed by colonels or lieutenant colonels.  Furthermore, her PRFs for each of the three SRBs were signed by either a three-star general officer or a four-star equivalent civilian, and her positions/assignment since 1989 have been at the Air Staff and Secretariat level.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 issue(s) 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 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 Docket Number 01-01907 in Executive Session on 19 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, dated 18 Jan 00, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letters, ARPC/DPB, dated 24 Jun 00, 23 Oct 00
                & 23 Feb 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 16 Oct 01.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 01.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Nov 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jan 02.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 1 Feb 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 02.
	Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 02, w/atchs.