RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03663
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears that the applicant is requesting that he be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board with a change in his promotion recommendation from “promote” to “definitely promote” (DP).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an error in his Single Uniform Retrieval Form (SURF), his senior rater did not have accurate information when determining his promotion recommendation for the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.  His senior rater was not aware that he had completed a master’s degree and Intermediate Service School (ISS).

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a statement from his senior rater.

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

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is   6 Jan 84.  A review of his last ten Officer Performance Reports indicates overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant is not clear on what he is seeking.  The applicant believes that if his senior rater had accurate information regarding the applicant’s completion of a master’s degree and ISS, he would have given him stronger consideration for a DP recommendation for promotion or competing him at the Management Level Review (MLR).

While the applicant has provided a letter from the senior rater stating the information was missing from the SURF, the senior rater stated “I cannot unequivocally say I would have competed him at that MLR.”  The applicant does not provide a new promotion recommendation form (PRF) and does not show support from the senior rater and/or MLR president as required.  The applicant also does not provide any evidence that he made any attempt prior to the MLR to correct these perceived inaccuracies.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  After reviewing the complete evidence of record, the majority of the Board does not find sufficient evidence of error or injustice.  The applicant maintains that a SURF used by his senior rater when deciding his promotion recommendation did not accurately reflect the status of his PME or advanced degree.  He further maintains that had his senior rater had accurate information, he would have given stronger consideration to awarding him a “DP.”  Although the applicant’s senior rater printed the SURF on 3 Sep 01, it clearly reflected that the data was accurate only as of 29 May 01.  Based on the letter submitted by the applicant from his senior rater, it appears he was well aware of the limitation of the SURF.  Additionally, the applicant’s contention that the SURF was inaccurate regarding his advanced degree is incorrect, since he did not complete his degree until 5 Sep 01, two days after the SURF was printed.  While a strong case might be made that the applicant would have been selected for promotion had he been awarded a “DP,” the majority of the Board believes that this is not the central issue of this case, rather, whether an error or injustice occurred during the MLR process.  The majority of the Board believes that the applicant’s argument that he did not receive fair consideration has no merit.  His senior rater makes two key points that are telling in this case.  First, he indicates that neither the applicant nor his chain of command advised him that the applicant had completed the courses prior to or after the MLR.  Secondly, he writes, “I cannot unequivocally say that I would have competed him at that MLR as I had sitting commanders competing for those DPs as well.”  Although not a definite statement that he would not have competed the applicant, the majority believes his intent is clear.  Finally, in cases where the Board has determined that the applicant deserves promotion consideration by a special selection board, whether the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in insuring their records were correct has been the yardstick.  The majority of the Board does not believe that we should require any less in this case.  With the applicant only completing PME in July 01 and his advanced degree in September 01, we believe that it was paramount that the applicant, and to some degree his chain of command, took whatever action necessary to ensure that the senior rater was aware of these late-breaking accomplishments of the applicant.  The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he took action to ensure his record was correct or that he questioned what influenced his promote recommendation when he received the advance copy of his PRF.  The majority of the Board believes the applicant must show that he fulfilled the responsibilities expected of any officer similarly situated being considered for promotion.  Therefore, the Board majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief requested.

______________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-03663 in Executive Session on 15 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request.  Mr. XXXX voted to grant the applicant’s request and has attached a minority report at Exhibit E.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 16 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Minority Report.

                                   

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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

	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.

							

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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

The Applicant contends that his Senior Rater did not have all the facts necessary to make an informed decision whether or not to compete him for a Definitely Promote (DP) at the Management-Level Review (MLR).  This contention has been proven to the satisfaction of the undersigned.

While the MLR and Senior Rater actions that precede it supposedly do not constitute a board, they collectively have the same impact as an additional board for part of the eligible officer pool.  The Senior Rater allocates DPs and competes the records of his next group of officers for carry-over DPs at the MLR.  An officer who receives a DP has in excess of a 99% chance of promotion, a virtual rubber-stamp by the Central Selection Board, while one who met this Central Selection Board with a Promote (P) had a 39% chance.  Thus, in a de facto sense, officers with excellent and middling records do have the advantage of meeting two “boards.”

The applicant acknowledges the Central Selection Board had access to all pertinent information about his career; the question is whether or not the Central Selection Board had a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for him that was similarly based upon accurate information.  The stakes were extremely high; had the applicant been awarded a DP by his Senior Rater or by the MLR, he would have been virtually certain to have been promoted.  With a P, his chance was only slightly better than one in three.  Since the Senior Rater and MLR did not have all relevant information, the applicant was deprived of one of the two chances his peers had, constituting an injustice requiring redress.

The majority opinion assumes that the inaccurate data available to the Senior Rater and MLR were either inconsequential or the fault of the applicant.  The opposite is true.  For the applicant’s career, the accurate data were of momentous consequence.  The assertion of the majority that the applicant was himself negligent for not more aggressively informing his chain of command is at best arguable.

a.  Virtually all officers selected for promotion by the Central Board had advanced degrees and Intermediate Service School (ISS).  For this reason, even though Senior Raters are not constrained to award DPs only to officers with those qualifications, in practice Senior Raters will not "waste" a DP on an officer who risks not being selected by the Central Board.  Since the applicant's completion of ISS and a degree were not known to the Senior Rater, he was not considered for a DP by him or by the MLR.  In a letter prepared by the Senior Rater in support of this appeal, he stated he would have given stronger consideration to competing his records at the MLR, but could not unequivocally say he would have competed him.

b. The Senior Rater's statement acknowledges the applicant's record was sufficiently impressive to be considered for competing at the MLR.  In fact, the Senior Rater stresses in his letter that he thought well of the applicant, giving him pushes for Senior Service School and fighter command.  It is risky to speculate on the quality of an individual's record based upon only a PRF.  Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the applicant was a Distinguished Graduate from two AF schools, an accomplishment typical of top-rank records.  His relatively narrow career track at squadron and wing, on the other hand, is typical of middling records.  This plus and minus is precisely the sort of career picture that must be weighed by a group of senior officers.  The applicant was denied any opportunity for this review as a direct result of his Senior Rater not having accurate information on his completion of an advanced degree and ISS.

c.  While admittedly the record does not reflect that the applicant did all he could to ensure his Senior Rater was aware of his degree and ISS completion, it is by no means clear that the Senior Rater's ignorance was the applicant's fault.  This board was conducted against the backdrop of updating the MILMOD personnel system.  When the Senior Rater pulled the applicant's Single Uniform Retrieval Form (SURF) on 3 Sep 01, how could either one of them have known that the data would be current only to 29 May 01?  This was three weeks before the applicant completed ISS, so it could never have been correct.  The applicant could have verified his records were correct and still not have known an old SURF would be produced four months later.  The Senior Rater's timeline shows the SURF pulled 3 Sep 01, the applicant's degree completion on 5 Sep 01, and the major command suspense for PRFs on 7 Sep.  With the combination of the MILMOD debacle and the 9/11 disaster occurring before the MLR on 25 Sep 01, it is not surprising that the applicant's record fell through the cracks.

Analysis of the facts of the case in the context of real-world events creates a presumptive case of error and injustice, but selecting the correct redress is difficult.  Granting the applicant a Special Selection Board would do no good, since all parties agree the Central Selection Board had the correct data.  This Board's granting a DP prior to a Special Selection Board would be wrong, since that would be a de facto promotion and this AFBCMR panel does not have the information to substitute its judgment for that of a duly constituted selection board.  The only just redress is to afford the applicant a chance to compete for a DP at a Supplemental MLR.  This option has recently been made available and is wholly appropriate in this instance.  If the applicant receives a DP, he should meet a Special Selection Board.  If he does not, his appeal should be denied.  In either case, the Air Force will have righted a wrong.

Strongly recommend the Secretary reverse the majority view and grant the applicant a Supplemental MLR.