RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00891
		INDEX CODE:  131.09

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel as though selected with her promotion year group.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was denied the opportunity to develop a record of performance during her Air Force career that would support any fair consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, a talking paper, letters from her senior raters, officer performance reports (OPRs), and other documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Sep 88.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 18 Mar 79.

On 24 May 89, the Board considered an application pertaining to the applicant, requesting that her Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) closing 31 Jan 85 be removed from her records.  The Board recommended that the contested report be declared void and removed from her records and she be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Boards for the Calendar Year 1987 (CY87) and Calendar Year 1988 (CY88) Major Boards.  The Deputy for Air Force Review Boards accepted the Board’s recommendation on 9 Jun 89.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.

On 12 May 92, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, requesting that she be returned to 
active duty and promoted to the grade of major.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit D.

On 2 Dec 94, the applicant requested reconsideration of her appeal.  Specifically, she requested a direct promotion to the grade of major with an equivalent date of rank (DOR) as though selected by the CY87 Major Board; reinstatement to active duty; and direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel with a DOR commensurate with her established DOR to the grade of major.  

On 7 Mar 95, the Board considered and recommended partial relief. They recommended that her records be corrected to show that:

	a.	She was tendered a Regular Air Force appointment and upon Senate confirmation, she accepted the appointment, effective 18 Dec 85.

	b.	She was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY87 Central Major Selection Board and upon Senate confirmation, she be given an appropriate effective date and date of rank.

	c.	The OER, AF Form 707, rendered for the period 18 Dec 86 through 17 Dec 87, be declared void and removed from her records.

	d.	She was not released from extended active duty on 31 Jan 89, but continued on extended active duty and was ordered Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to her home of record.

It was further recommended that if she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a regularly scheduled promotion board prior to receiving two current OPRs in the grade of major, her nonselection(s) would be declared void.

The Deputy for Air Force Review Boards accepted the Board’s recommendation on 15 May 95.  A complete copy of the Addendum to Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E.

On 24 Mar 97, the applicant again submitted additional documentation and requested that an OER be included in her records.  On 16 May 97, the Board considered her request and recommended that an OER closing 17 Dec 97 be inserted in her records in its proper sequence.  The Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, accepted the Board’s recommendation on 29 Jul 97.  A complete copy of the Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1996 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	31 May 96			Meets Standards
	31 May 97			Meets Standards
	31 May 98			Meets Standards
  # 31 May 99			Meets Standards
 ## 31 May 00			Meets Standards
### 31 May 01			Meets Standards

  # Top Report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A and CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Boards.

 ## Top Report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel Board.

### Top Report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01A Lieutenant Colonel Board.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They noted that as a result of a detrimental OER with a close out date of 31 Jan 85, the applicant was twice nonselected to the grade of major and was subsequently involuntarily separated.  From 1985 to 1989, she sought correction of that OER, and on 24 Jan 89, the AFBCMR granted removal of the contested OER from her records.  She was considered by the Nov 89 Special Selection Board (SSB) and again nonselected.  The applicant appealed several times through the AFBCMR to be returned to active duty and be promoted to the grade of major, with unsuccessful results.  On 15 May 95, the AFBCMR directed that her record be corrected, that she be returned to active duty, that she be promoted to major with a date of rank of 1 Sep 88, and that she not be considered nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel until she had received two officer promotion reports (OPRs) as a major.

Upon her return to active duty, she was assigned to a job outside her career field and was eventually reassigned to an Air Force Reserve Officers Training Corps (AFROTC) detachment.  While working at the detachment, she discovered numerous AFROTC violations and felt compelled to report them to her superiors.  As a consequence of the investigations, the detachment commander was relieved of his duties, but prior to his removal he wrote her second OPR.  She met the P0599A and P0599B boards and was nonselected.

According to AFPC/DPPPO, the Air Force has many officers who, for a variety of reasons, do not follow a typical career path.  Many of these officers progress and do very well when meeting promotion boards.  Promoting the applicant outright would be an injustice to other officers who have had a break in service and are not afforded direct promotion.  Her situation is no more unique than those officers recalled to active duty with breaks in service, interservice transfers, and transfers from the Air Force Reserve or Guard.  They, too, have incomplete records and lack the breadth and depth that their peers have.  While it is unfortunate the applicant was not in an active duty status for nearly seven years, the AFBCMR has already provided a way for her to establish a record of performance as a major.  She states, “I was faced with the impossible task of building a competitive record for promotion to lieutenant colonel in only two years, after an almost seven-year break in service.  The AFBCMR’s 15 Mar 95 decision provided a way for the applicant to establish a record of performance as a major--she was not to be considered a nonselect for promotion to lieutenant colonel until she had received two OPRs as a major.  Granting her a direct promotion to lieutenant colonel would ignore the basic principle of the promotion system--promotions are based on demonstrated potential based on the record of performance.

AFPC/DPPPO indicated that both Congress and the Department of the Defense (DOD) have made clear their intent that when errors are perceived to ultimately affect promotion, they should be addressed and resolved through the use of SSBs.  When many good officers are competing for a limited number of promotions, it is extremely competitive.  Without access to all the competing records and an appreciation of their content, they continue to believe the practice of sending cases to SSBs is the fairest and best practice.  In the past, and hopefully in the future, the AFBCMR will consider direct promotion only in the most extraordinary circumstances.

AFPC/DPPPO noted that although the applicant wrote a letter to the P0599A board informing them of her unique situation in the Air Force, and she wrote another letter to the PO500A board explaining in more detail the circumstances as to why her record looked different than the others, she was nonselected to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response, the applicant indicated that she was denied the opportunities to prove her promotion and career potential.  In her view, the objective of promotion boards and SSBs is to promote officers based on a set standard of rules based on promotion potential as proven by job performance and other criteria.  She stated that she was denied the opportunity to develop a record of performance to demonstrate her promotion potential and it is only the AFBCMR that can correct her record and the injustice that has occurred.  According to the applicant, AFPC/DPPPO’s recommendation that her appeal be denied is premised on a misunderstanding of the facts of her case in light of the applicable legal and regulatory standards.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation provided in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  We took note of the Board’s previous actions to promote the applicant to the grade of major, return her to active duty, correct her records, and set aside any nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel prior her to receiving two current officer performance reports.  After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe the relief afforded by the Board has provided the applicant an opportunity to compete for promotion on a fair and equitable basis.  The applicant does not agree and now requests direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  However, we note that officers compete for promotion under the whole person concept whereby many factors are carefully assessed by selection boards.  In addition, an officer may be qualified, but in the judgment of a selection board--vested with discretionary authority to make the selections--may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel is very competitive and the applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that she would have been selected for promotion had it not been for an interruption in her career.  We understand the applicant’s disappointment in not being selected for promotion.  However, based on the documentation before us, we find no basis to promote the applicant through the correction of records process.  In view of the foregoing, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of establishing that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 02-00891 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, dated
                9 Jun 89, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Record of Proceedings, dated 1 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, dated
                15 May 95, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, dated
                29 Jul 97, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 May 02.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jun 02.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 5 Jul 02, w/atch.