RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01817
		INDEX CODE:  131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO	

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was identified by the major selection board as a candidate for in residence Intermediate Service School (ISS).  At the time he was stationed at the Air Force Academy and he was not submitted to the ISS selection board.  After a permanent change of station (PCS) move to Whiteman AFB, MO, he was told that he would not be submitted for ISS because he did not have enough time on station.  The following year, which was his third and final year of eligibility, he was not selected by the ISS board.  He later read an Air Force Times article that stated that the board was selecting officers in their first or second year of eligibility only.  He subsequently completed Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) by correspondence.  His performance reports were all positive and he was assured by his supervisors that he would be promoted to lieutenant colonel.  However, he was not selected.  He requested a review of his records and was told that there was nothing in his records that would indicate why he was not promoted.  The following board, he was again assured by his supervisors that he would be promoted and again he was not selected.  

He feels that he was unfairly prevented from competing for in-residence ISS which would have significantly enhanced his promotion potential.  His selection as a candidate for ISS indicates that he was in the top 20 percent for the major's board.  The applicant questions how he ranked in the top 20 percent in the major selection board and fell to the bottom 20 percent of the lieutenant colonel selection board without any negative feedback or documentation of nonperformance.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) and the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards that convened on 28 Nov 00 and 5 Nov 01, respectively. He currently has a projected date of separation of 31 May 05.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAP reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPAP states that the senior raters at the Air Force Academy and Whiteman AFB were not obligated to nominate the applicant to compete at his first two ISS selection boards.  His year of eligibility did not eliminate him for due consideration of ISS selection during the third ISS central selection board.  In fact, ISS board panel members were instructed to pay particular attention to nominees in there last year of eligibility; these nominees were also scored first when the board convened.  The DPAP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPO states that both Congress and 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 Special Selection Boards (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 for their content, the practice of sending cases to SSBs is the fairest and best practice.  Direct promotion should only be considered in the most extraordinary circumstances where SSB consideration has been deemed to be totally unworkable.  The applicant's case clearly does not warrant direct promotion.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 Oct 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  It is our opinion that although the applicant was identified as an ISS candidate, that selection in itself, does not guarantee him in-residence attendance nor did it obligate his senior raters to nominate him to compete for attendance during his first two years of eligibility.  We are not persuaded by the evidence submitted that he was not provided full and fair consideration by the ISS Central Selection Board that considered him in his third year of eligibility.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 Docket Number 02-01817 in Executive Session on 20 Nov 02, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAP, dated 18 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Sep 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 02.

					
								Panel Chair