RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01820

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel for the Calendar Years 2000A and 2001A for the Medical Corps Central Colonel Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The request by exception is based on an administrative error as stated in AFI 36-2501 6.3.1 (atch #2).  As a podiatrist, he has competed for promotion in the Biomedical Science Corp (BSC) when the competitive category to which he should belong is in the Medical Corp (MC).

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of AFI 36-2501, Chapter 6, AFI 44-119, The Equal Pay Act of 1963, AF Form 2829, Privilege List - Podiatry, Podiatry Proficiency Standards, Facts About Compensation Discrimination, letter from the Chief, Special Assignments Branch.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  He was commissioned a Captain into the Biomedical Sciences Corps (BSC) in accordance with AFI 36-2005.  Since 1981, he has been categorized as a member of the BSC.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY2000A and 2001A BSC selection boards.

Applicant has received seven OPR's since he was promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, all of which reflects "Meets Standards."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAMW indicates podiatrists are classified as belonging to the “Biomedical Clinicians Utilization Field”, 42XXX.  They do not fall under any of the Medical Corps areas:  Physical Utilization Field (44XX), Surgery Utilization Field (45XX), or Aerospace Medicine Utilization (48XX).

DPAMW recommended denial and stated in order to meet a Medical Corps selection board, an individual must be a member of that competitive category--Medical Corps.  The applicant does not meet the AFI or AFMAN guidelines for being in the Medical Corps.  The applicant has been a BSC for 21 years and should continue in that competitive category for all future promotion considerations.

AFPC/DPAMN complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that per Title 10, Chapter 36, paragraph 621, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of each military department shall establish competitive categories for promotion.  Each officer whose name appears on an active duty list shall be carried in a competitive category of officers.  Officers in the same competitive category shall compete among themselves for promotion.

DPPO recommends disapproval.  Applicant has met the central selection boards as a BSC officer to the grade of major, lieutenant colonel and colonel.  There are no provisions in the law to allow an officer to meet central selection board in a competitive category other than the one he is originally classified in on the active duty list.  In order to be considered in another competitive category, the applicant would have to apply for a competitive category transfer.  If eligible and approved, this would allow him to compete at future promotion boards in a different competitive category.

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that his complaint goes into detail on the current privileging and job responsibilities of podiatrists and how these differ little from his medical counterparts.  Podiatry is one of four medical professions that is fully licensed and qualified to practice medicine and surgery.  The four are:  Medicine, Dentistry, Podiatry and Veterinary Medicine.  Since the Air Force does not utilize Veterinarians in Veterinary Medicine, that part of the issue is moot.  Veterinarians in the Air Force are utilized as Public Health Officers and there is no requirement for a Public Health Officer to be a Veterinarian.

The applicant is still requesting a Medical Corps SSB or an equivalent and equal SSB for reconsideration to the rank of colonel.  If the AFBCMR will not evaluate the issue as it relates to the Equal Pay Issue, he will seek a judicial settlement.

Applicant’s complete response is attached 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.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change in his competitive category for promotion.  After thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his request should be granted.  We noted that the Air Force indicates that there are no provisions in the law to allow an officer to meet a central selection board in a competitive category other than the one he is originally classified in on the active duty list.  The Board finds no evidence the applicant was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals.  Furthermore, based on our review of the record, it appears that the applicant has been very successful in competing for promotion in his competitive category during the past 21 years.  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 a 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 02-01820 in Executive Session on 12 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPAMW, dated 10 Jun 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Sep 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Sep 02.

	Panel Chair