RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02866
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be supplementally considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a by-name request to fill a particular position within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict, Special Operations and Combating Terrorism (OASD (SO/LIC)) SO & CT; however, when it became available, he was not assigned to the position.  

In support of his requests, the applicant provided personal statements, a supportive statement, 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 in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Jan 98.  He has been credited with 16 years of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 1992 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 8 Aug 92	Meets Standards
	25 Feb 93	Meets Standards
	25 Feb 94	Meets Standards
	25 Feb 95	Meets Standards
	31 Dec 95	Meets Standards
	31 Dec 96	Meets Standards
	29 Aug 97	Meets Standards
	29 Apr 98	Meets Standards
	29 Apr 99	Meets Standards
	27 Apr 00	Meets Standards
	27 Apr 01	Meets Standards
	27 Apr 02	Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

11 WG/CCV provided an advisory indicating that based on the merits of this case, they believed the applicant has suffered an injustice and recommends that the applicant be reconsidered by the original position vacancy board.

A complete copy of the 11 WG/CCV evaluation is at Exhibit C.

ARPC/DPB recommended denial.  They noted that ARPC/DPA assigned the applicant to an 0-5 (lieutenant colonel) position at OASD effective 1 Oct 01.

ARPC/DPB further noted that the applicant was not nominated or considered for promotion by the FY03 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Selection Board, which convened on 24 Jun 02.  Based on his date of rank, he was not eligible for any lieutenant colonel selection boards prior to that time.

According to ARPC/DPB, the applicant’s package indicated that there was an assumption (by both the applicant and his rating chain) that the applicant was serving in an authorized, funded, higher graded position at the time of the Jun 02 board.  However, there is no indication in the application that his chain of command (rater, additional rater or senior rater) intended to nominate the applicant for a position vacancy promotion.

ARPC/DPB stated that it is not within the purview of the 11th WG/CCV (IMA Program Manager) to either comment on or make recommendations as to the appropriateness of a position vacancy supplemental promotion consideration.  The Program Manager is not in the applicant’s rating chain or in a position to evaluate the promotability of the applicant and has limited knowledge of the position vacancy promotion process.  Only they should comment on the suitability of a special board and only the rating chain can actually nominate an officer for a position vacancy consideration.

ARPC/DPB indicated that although the applicant and his rating chain believed he occupied an authorized, funded, higher graded position at the time of the board, there was no documentation available to substantiate an intent to nominate the applicant for a position vacancy promotion.  The applicant is date of rank eligible for a position vacancy nomination by the FY04 board.  The senior rater can nominate the applicant for that board if he/she chooses to do so.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating that as a result of administrative corrections to his position, he now has all the requirements to meet a position vacancy board:  time in grade, a valid lieutenant colonel position, and the intent to nominate.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB again recommended denial, noting the additional documentary evidence provided with the applicant’s rebuttal response.  According to ARPC/DPB, Brigadier General H--- was not in a position to nominate the applicant for a position vacancy nor was he in the applicant’s established rating chain.  Colonel C---‘s statement that he had been the applicant’s supervisor since Aug 00 did not appear to be accurate.  The applicant’s supervisor/rater, as shown on his (OPRs) for 2001 and 2002 was Mr. T--- J. K---.  They both could not have been the rater.  As Mr. K--- was the rater, only he could logically comment on whether he had considered proposing to the senior rater that the applicant be nominated for position vacancy consideration.  Although Mr. Y--- stated that he was the applicant’s senior rater during the two years before the selection board in question, and that he intended to nominate the applicant for the Jun 02 position vacancy board, no Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) existed to support that contention.  In ARPC/DPB’s view, a letter prepared six months after the board in question and eight months after the PRF was required for nomination reflects hindsight, not foresight.  

ARPC/DPB indicated that as stated in their original advisory, there was an assumption by both the applicant and his rating chain that the applicant was serving in an authorized, funded, higher graded position at the time of the Jun 02 board.  Based on the assumption that the applicant was in a higher graded, funded position, the senior rater of record would prepare the PRF nominating the applicant for position vacancy consideration.  This did not occur.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response indicating that during the Nov-Dec 01, the staff within OASD (---) began the process of drafting a PRF with the full intent of forwarding the signed nomination for the Jun 02 position vacancy board, and that his senior rater fully intended to sign the PRF and nominate him for the promotion.  However, in Jan 02, he was advised that there was no possibility of his meeting the board until the issues regarding his position was resolved.  Therefore, there was no logic in forwarding the PRF to his senior rater for signature.  This was not hindsight, but the need to correct the administrative elements of the position before they could go forward.  The position has since been corrected and he now resides in a fully funded, lieutenant colonel position with an effective date of 1 Oct 01.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 his contentions were duly noted.  However, a majority of the Board does not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficient to convince the majority that corrective action is warranted in this case.  The available evidence indicates that a rated, funded lieutenant colonel position was established within OASD (OASD (---) ---, backdated to 1 Oct 01, that the applicant was assigned to subsequent to the FY03 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Board, which convened in Jun 02.  As a result, the applicant was not considered for a position vacancy promotion by that board.  He now requests supplemental consideration by the FY03 board.  However, it appears to the majority that the applicant was not considered by the FY03 board because he was not nominated for the position vacancy promotion even though both the applicant and his rating chain assumed at the time that he was serving in a funded, higher rated position.  Subsequent to his initial submission, the applicant has provided statements of support, to include his senior rater, indicating that there was an intent to nominate him for the position vacancy promotion.  Nonetheless, the comments from the senior rater and other supportive statements have not shown to the majority's satisfaction that there was an clear intent to nominate the applicant for the position vacancy promotion prior to the convening of the FY03 board.  It is the majority's opinion that the statements are retrospective in nature and do not provide an appropriate basis to find that the applicant should be supplementally considered by the FY03 board.  Furthermore, the majority notes that notwithstanding the fact the establishment of the position was backdated, the applicant was not assigned to the position until after the FY03 board had convened.  Since the applicant is eligible for a position vacancy nomination by the FY04 board, the majority agrees with the office of primary responsibility (OPR) that the senior rater can nominate the applicant for that board if he chooses to do so.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of clear-cut evidence to the contrary, a majority of the Board concludes that no basis exists to act favorably on the applicant's request.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-02866 in Executive Session on 10 Jun 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  Mr. Peterson voted to grant the appeal but did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, 11 WG/CV, dated 10 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 4 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 28 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 1 Apr 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 17 Apr 03, w/atchs.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2002-02866

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.