RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00272
		INDEX CODE:  131.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of rank (DOR) to the Reserve grade of major be 28 June 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Had she separated from active duty with a line number for major, after selection for promotion by the Reserve promotion board, and the validation of her position at CENTCOM as a funded position, she would have been eligible for an accelerated promotion as of the date of the position validation.  Since she was selected for promotion by the active duty as a result of a Special Selection Board, at the direction of the AFBCMR, well after the Air Force validation of her position, she was not afforded the opportunity to request an accelerated promotion from her supervisor.

She was selected for promotion to major by the Fiscal Year (FY) 02 Reserve of the Air Force Line and Non-line Major Promotion Selection Board that convened on 19 February 2001.  Her effective date of promotion from that board was 1 October 2001.  Subsequently, she was selected for promotion by the active duty Air Force in a supplemental promotion board, which convened on 7 May 2001.  She was awarded a promotion date from that board of 1 November 2000, had she still been on active duty.  As she had been filling a lieutenant colonel position, she would have been eligible to be promoted to the grade of major, effective with the validation of her position by the Air Force, via an accelerated promotion.  That paragraph/line number was validated by the Air Force as a funded billet on 28 June 2001.  An accelerated promotion would have been requested and approved by the CENTCOM J5 immediately upon approval of the billet, based on her previous selection for promotion while on active duty, had that selection occurred before she separated.  

Since the reserve promotion system is based on fiscal year date of rank, by not being able to accelerate her promotion when the position was validated, she now falls into a later fiscal year for all future promotion considerations.  This continues to leave her behind her peers, just as the original active duty promotion board did.  In order to completely rectify the promotion situation created by the original oversight of the active duty promotion system, she requests to be returned to a competitive state with her peers.  This requires a date of rank of 28 June 2001 in FY01, rather than FY02.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in Air Force Reserve in the grade of major, with a date of rank of 24 September 2001.

On 19 January 2001 the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and granted the applicant’s request that her Officer Selection Brief for the Calendar Year (CY) 2000A Central Major Selection Board be amended to show, as an exception to policy, the reason for her Date of Separation (DOS) was to enter into the active Reserves, and that her corrected record be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of major for that selection board.  She was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of major, with a date of rank of 1 October 2001 (Exhibit B).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommended denial.  They indicated that based on her date of rank (DOR) and total year service date (TYSD), she would have been placed on the appropriate Reserve Active Status List (RASL) promotion list (at the time of transfer to the USAFR) with a DOR and effective date of 1 October 2001, the exact same results she received when she was considered by a RASL promotion board.  She has competed with and will continue to compete with her RASL peers for promotion within the USAFR.  

Additionally, she apparently does not have the support of her supervisor and senior rater of record for an acceleration of her promotion date.  Acceleration of a promotion date is not an entitlement; it is used after careful consideration of the suitability of early promotion, by both the supervisor and senior rater.  Without their support (in the form of a request for acceleration as prescribed in AFI 36-2504, paragraph 6.5), acceleration is not appropriate.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response, with attachments, that is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPB provided an amended advisory and recommended denial.  They indicated that based on the additional information provided by the applicant, their original advisory is amended.

It appears the applicant’s chain of command did support an accelerated promotion.  The request for accelerated promotion did arrive at HQ ARPC.

When they received the request for acceleration, the Reserve Management Vacancy System (RMVS) was checked to insure the applicant occupied the position for which nominated and was the sole occupant of the position for which acceleration was requested.  RMVS, Manpower/Personnel Position Information showed the applicant was not the sole occupant of the position, and was not even the incumbent in the position.  The incumbent was a lieutenant colonel.  The applicant was coded “Overage/Undergrade…grade 2 under author-Grade.”  HQ ARPC phoned the program manager to report the problem, but nothing was done to correct the overage.  In fact, the overage/undergrade situation still exists (seven months after the acceleration request).  The applicant did not meet the requirement of being the sole occupant or incumbent in the higher graded position.  The applicant did not meet the requirement of early promotion.  She was promoted on time - promotion regardless of position availability.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant’s senior rater’s request to have her date of rank (DOR) adjusted to 24 September 2001 has been granted.

When MilPDS became the computer system of record, some changes were made to the “overgrade/overage” code definitions.  At the time of the original request from the applicant’s senior rater to accelerate her promotion to 24 September 2001, they were unaware of those changes.  They have just recently been notified, and have made the correction to the applicant’s DOR to reflect the requested DOR.

In the applicant’s letter of 22 May 2002, she also requests further adjustment to her DOR to reflect the date the position she is occupying became a funded position (28 June 2001).  They are unable to comply with that request.

The applicant’s senior rater specifically requested 24 September 2001.  In the letter requesting the acceleration, the senior rater acknowledged the position became funded (in his mind) on 28 June and that the applicant was occupying the position on that date.  Although the senior rater could have requested any date on or after 28 June, he used 24 September.

The date of the letter from the senior rater was 24 September 2001, requesting the promotion date of 24 September.  Normally, they would publish the order with an effective date and DOR of 26 September.  By policy, the requested date for an accelerated promotion must be two business days after the date the request is received.  This is to enable them to perform the appropriate verifications and publish promotion orders in time for the newly promoted officer to receive the order prior to the effective date of promotion.  It also enables them to comply with the law that prohibits back-dating a promotion.

The senior rater’s letter specifically requested the DOR of 24 September.  They have found that due to changes in MilPDS, they were able to comply with the request after the fact.  Simply because the position was funded as of 28 June does not entitle the applicant to that date.  After careful consideration of her skills and ability, the senior rater made a decision that the applicant deserved to be promoted as of September.  

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response, with attachment, that 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 an error or an injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to 28 June 2001.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s initial appeal to the AFBCMR resulted in her promotion to the grade of major with a DOR of 1 November 2000 had she remained on active duty. However, by the time the results of the Special Selection Board were announced she had already transferred to the Air Force Reserve and had been selected for promotion to the Reserve grade of major with a DOR of 1 October 2001.  Based on these circumstances and the fact that she had been filling a lieutenant colonel’s position, her senior rater recommended her for an accelerated promotion with a DOR of 24 September 2001.  This recommendation was approved and the applicant currently has a DOR of 24 September 2001.  However, the applicant believes that her DOR should be further adjusted to the date she began occupying the lieutenant colonel’s position, 28 June 2001.  We do not agree.  As noted by the Air Staff, an accelerated promotion is not an entitlement.  Further, when the senior rater requested an accelerated promotion, he could have requested the earlier date, however, he did not.  It appears the September date was selected so that the applicant would benefit during future promotion considerations by placing her in an earlier Fiscal Year promotion group.  The applicant has presented insufficient evidence that it was the intent of the senior rater to have her promoted earlier than 24 September 2001.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 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 02-00272 in Executive Session on 6 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 January 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 12 February 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 February 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 February 2002,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 15 April 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 April 2002.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 May 2002.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 7 June 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 June 2002.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 July 2002, w/atch.