RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01665
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY01A Major Board be revised to reflect his record of performance and that he be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Major Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His official records place him in the top 5-10% of all officers.  Yet, with a 90% promotion rate to major Air Force wide, he was passed over.  As the #1 Company Grade Officer (CGO) of the Year in the Air Force’s largest fighter operations group, he believes he earned a Definite Promote (DP) recommendation and an appropriate PRF narrative.  He states that since his date of separation was listed on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) he did not receive “fair and equitable” consideration from his senior rater or the promotion board as required by AFI 36-2501.  Thus, he was passed over and an exemplary career has been damaged.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a non-select counseling letter, dated 27 December 2001, and letters from the Commander, --- Air National Guard (ANG), dated 8 January 2002, AETC/CV, dated 10 March 2002, and --- FS/CC, dated 4 January 2001, the contested PRF, prepared for the CY01A Major Board, and other documentation.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question, the applicant was serving on extended active duty in the grade of captain effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 29 May 1995.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY01A Major Selection Board, which convened on 18 June 2001.  He received a “Promote” PRF.

Applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflects his approved DOS of “23 September 2001” and the reason for separation as “Resignation.”

OPR profile since 1995 follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			30 Jun 95		Training Report (TR)
			 6 Aug 96				(TR)
			 6 Aug 97		Meets Standards (MS)	
			 2 Apr 98				(MS)
			 2 Apr 99				(MS)
			 2 Apr 00				(MS)
		    #  18 Jan 01				(MS)
			23 Sep 01				(MS)
			22 Jan 02				(MS)

#Top Report for the CY01A Board

Examiner’s Note:  AFPC advises that the applicant’s senior rater had 14 Definitely Promote (DPs) to give.  He gave 15 – the 15th came from AETC MLR.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommended denial.  The indicated that the applicant contends the PRF he received was poorly written due to his pending separation and declination of his Test Pilot School Selection.  He provides no evidence to support these allegations.  The senior rater (SR) reviews the ratee’s record of performance, duty qualification history brief (DQHB), personnel information file and unfavorable information file while preparing the ratee’s PRF.  The ratee’s DOS is located on the DQHB and can be considered but not commented on unless the ratee displays a reluctance to accept responsibility, a negative attitude toward the job, or exhibits a decrease in performance that can be reasonably attributed to a pending separation or retirement.

The applicant provides a memorandum of support from his promotion non-select counselor.  However, the counselor’s memo is based solely on individual opinion and should not be considered an official statement of support from AFPC.

The applicant did not obtain the required support from his SR and Management Level Review (MLR) President.  In fact, the MLR President states in his memorandum, “I concur with Brigadier General ------ ------‘s assessment of your record and do not support submitting a new PRF to the AFBCMR.”  In addition, the applicant has not provided any documentation or evidence supporting his allegations.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They indicated that they concur with HQ AFPC/DPPPEB’s advisory and have nothing further to add.  Since the advisory recommends disapproval, SSB consideration is not warranted.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and states that the basis for his appeal is two-fold.  The first basis of his appeal concerns the fact that his PRF doesn’t accurately reflect his record of performance and ability to assume the rank of major in relation to his peers.  The second basis concerns the lack of “fair and equitable” consideration given to his selection folder by the promotion board since they were aware of his DOS but unaware he was separating to the Air National Guard.  However, both of the advisory opinions fail to acknowledge the second basis of his appeal and bring into question whether or not his appeal package was thoroughly reviewed by HQ/AFPC.

He has provided numerous official documents, many which were signed by his senior rater, which placed him in the top 5-10% of all officers.  He was the --th Operations Group Company Grade Officer of the Year for 2000, making him the #1 captain in his senior rater’s Operations Group.  He has provided a signed letter from his senior rater congratulating him on his prestigious selection to the Air Force’s Test Pilot School – a school for which few aviators are chosen.  He is a combat proven veteran who has been placed in harms way on numerous occasions, excelled in the face of danger, and was accordingly awarded two air medals for his efforts.  Not to mention that his OPRs demonstrate time and time again that he was selected for key positions and flight ratings ahead of his peers and more senior officers.  His senior rater also endorsed an OPR which states that he had “unlimited potential and was well ahead of his peers in officership and flying abilities – a model Air Force officer.”  These are the facts and they bring into question why he wasn’t given a “DP” when his senior rater gave the top 55% of his captains DP’s?  How can the #1 captain in the Operations Group not be in the top 55% of his captains?  What purpose do our award programs serve if not to identify superior performers?  Why did the change in his assessment of his promotion potential coincide with the announcement of his intent to separate to the Air National Guard?  These are the facts and questions they cannot afford to address, so instead they make vague statements and rely on their rank, status, or position to lend credibility to their recommendation.

He states that the second basis for his appeal, was missed by HQ AFPC, that the promotion board itself didn’t give him the “fair and equitable” consideration guaranteed him by AFP 36-2506, Paragraph 4.3 and AFI 36-2501, Paragraph 10.3.5.2, as detailed in his appeal package.  Never mind the fact that he’s a rated officer with extensive experience, a top-notch performer, and has garnered many accolades – he was passed over for major with a 90% promotion rate to major Air Force-wide.  He contends that the promotion board saw his DOS and discounted his desire for promotion.  In effect, making the incorrect assumption that he was leaving for the civilian sector vice continuing his military career.  This allowed them to promote another active duty officer.  His only hope was for the board to recognize the disconnect between his PRF and his record of performance.  

A counselor assigned to him by HQ AFPC reviewed his record and identified a profound disconnect between his record of performance and the PRF submitted by his senior rater.  She stated that his record was power packed and one of the best she has seen in her 11 plus years of personnel experience.  Given these facts, and the fact he had no UIF, in her expert and objective opinion, she concluded his PRF was poorly written due to his pending DOS.  The counselor also stated if his DOS affected his senior rater’s decision-making, it would be naïve to think it didn’t affect the board members.  She was actually surprised the board members didn’t promote him since, in comparison to other “P” records that met the same board, his record was clearly in “another class.”  If these facts aren’t sufficient for the Air Force to grant him an SSB, then he has no idea what would.

Applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice warranting partial relief.  After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted with this appeal, we are persuaded that the applicant’s date of separation (DOS) on his officer selection brief (OSB) constitutes an injustice.  Although, Air Force and Department of Defense (DOD) Instructions regarding officer promotions allow the DOS to be on the applicant’s records, the Board believes by showing the DOS on his OSB the CY01A Board members were alerted to the fact that the applicant had an established DOS.  Moreover, it appears that he was advised during a non-select counseling session by personnel at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) that a DOS is a significant detractor in a record and may result in non-selection.  We cannot conclusively determine whether or not the presence of the DOS was the sole reason for applicant’s non-selection for promotion by the board in question, however, we do believe it deprived him of fair and equitable consideration.  Therefore we recommend the records be corrected as indicated below.

4.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the promotion recommendation form (PRF) is in error or unjust.  The applicant contends that the PRF was poorly written due to his pending separation and declination of his Test Pilot School Selection.  The statement provided from his non-select counselor is noted; however, this individual was not responsible for accessing applicant’s performance during the period in question.  We have reviewed the comments on the PRF and it appears the senior rater provided his honest assessment of applicant’s performance.  Furthermore, the Management Level Review (MLR) President states in his memorandum, “I concur with Brigadier General  .  ‘s assessment of your record and do not support submitting a new PRF to the AFBCMR.”  In view of the above findings, 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

5.	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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer Selection Brief prepared for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Central Major Selection Board be amended to show, as an exception to policy, the reason for his Date of Separation (DOS) was to enter into the active Reserves via the Palace Front, and that his corrected record be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of major for that selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01665 in Executive Session on 22 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Panel Chair
		Member
		Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 April 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 5 June 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, APC/DPPPO, dated 9 August 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 August 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 August 2002.

			
			Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-01665

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to     , be corrected to show that the Officer Selection Brief prepared for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Central Major Selection Board be, and hereby is, amended to show, as an exception to policy, the reason for his Date of Separation (DOS) was to enter into the active Reserves via the Palace Front, and that his corrected record be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of major for that selection board.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency