RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-00070 #2
		INDEX CODE 131.01  111.01
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected by Calendar Year 1992A (CY92A) central colonel selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) did not reflect his performance and potential. His career path gave him far less opportunity than his peers to get a three-star indorsement on his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER). There are irregularities in the Air Force’s board process and he was clearly denied due process.

The Air Force chose not to award him with an earned Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) or write a report for the last performance period before his separation from active duty in 1973. This resulted in exceptional achievements being left out of his records. Further, the potential for systemic ageism existed in the Air Force when official photos were included in the selection folders reviewed by earlier selection boards; his break in service made him vulnerable to this bias. Additionally, his record did not have any three-star OER indorsements because his Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) tour (1983-1985) offered only training reports (TRs) in lieu of OERs, which were essential for promotion to colonel in the (then) Military Airlift Command (MAC) with a “Promote” recommendation. Plus, it was AFIT’s policy not to grant awards or medals at that time; if their Distinguished Graduate program had not been abolished, he would have had that honor. Guidelines during his four-year tour (1985-1989) at HQ Air Force Management Engineering Agency (AFMEA) further denied him three-star indorsements. 

The applicant provides, in part, statements from other officers regarding breaks in service and three-star indorsements. Also included are statements attesting to the applicant’s professional capabilities. The applicant’s complete submission, with over 30 attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force and entered extended active duty (EAD) on 7 Jun 67. On 17 Jun 69, he tendered his resignation effective 13 Sep 72. He indicated he wanted to study law and enter business and politics. On 17 Jul 69, the commander recommended the application be approved, indicating the applicant appeared inalterably convinced that a civilian career was his ultimate goal. The applicant’s resignation was approved on 11 Aug 69 with an effective date of 13 Sep 72. On 7 Jul 72, the applicant requested that the effective date be moved up to 12 Aug 72 so he could return to college. This new effective date was approved on 21 Jul 72. However, on 2 Aug 72, the applicant requested that his resignation be withdrawn because he now wanted to be a career officer. His request to withdraw his resignation was approved on 13 Sep 72. On 22 Mar 73, the applicant requested a voluntary suspension from flying status to enter the Medical Education Program for Air Force officers; this request was approved on 30 Apr 73 with an effective date of 31 Jul 73. However, on 30 Apr 73, before being notified of acceptance into the program, he again tendered his resignation effective 1 Aug 73. His resignation was accepted on 12 Jun 73. On 1 Aug 73, the applicant was released from EAD in the grade of captain and transferred to the Air Force Reserves.

On 7 Jun 79, the applicant re-entered EAD. He was nonselected for the grade of colonel nine times by the following central selection boards:  CY92A (6 Jul 92), CY93A (12 Jul 93), CY94A (11 Jul 94), CY95B (10 Oct 95), CY96B (8 Jul 96), CY97B (8 Dec 97), CY98C (1 Dec 98), CY99A (2 Aug 99), and CY00A (17 Jul 00). The applicant wrote letters to the CY92A and CY93A board presidents regarding his career highlights and the indorsement level of his OERs. His PRFs reflect overall recommendations of “Promote.”

[Note: AFPC/DPPB informally advised the AFBCMR staff via email that Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) instructions to promotion boards in the 1980s through 1991 did contain a paragraph about recallees/records with a break in service. However, for whatever reason, that paragraph was removed in 1992 to present. The instructions continue to charge board members to give fair and equitable evaluation to every record. All photos were removed from the Officer Selection Record effective 1 Jan 95, per the Air Force Chief of Staff.]

The applicant’s performance reports since 2 May 91 reflect the following:

	PERIOD ENDING			POTENTIAL/INDORSEMENT

	*   1 May 92		Meets Standards (brigadier general)
	**  1 May 93		Meets Standards (major general)
	***11 Apr 94		Meets Standards (brigadier general)
	#  11 Apr 95		Meets Standards (brigadier general)
	## 11 Apr 96		Meets Standards (major general)
	###11 Apr 97		Meets Standards (major general)
	@  11 Apr 98		Meets Standards (major general)
	@@ 11 Apr 99		Meets Standards (major general)
	@@@11 Apr 00		Meets Standards (major general)

*  Top report viewed by CY92A board
** Top report viewed by CY93A board
***Top report viewed by CY94A board
#  Top report viewed by CY95B board
## Top report viewed by CY96B board
###Top report viewed by CY97B board
@  Top report viewed by CY98C board
@@ Top report viewed by CY99A board
@@@Top report viewed by CY00A board

On 30 Jun 93, the applicant requested the senior rater and the Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) president to upgrade his CY92A PRF from “Promote” to “Definitely Promote (DP).” The applicant raised the break-in-service and OER-indorsement-level issues. However, on 13 Jul 93, the senior rater advised he found insufficient rationale to recommend to the MLEB president that the PRF be upgraded.

On 23 Sep 93, the applicant filed an AFBCMR appeal for award of the AFCM for the period 15 May 70-1 Aug 73. The Board granted his request on 16 Jun 94.  As a result, the applicant was considered by the 28 Nov 94 Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY92A and CY93A boards with the AFCM included in his records. However, he was not selected to the grade of colonel.

In the interim, the applicant had requested the rater of the 1 May 92, 1 May 93, and 11 Apr 94 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) to confirm, among other things, that the break in service was a primary cause for the applicant’s nonselection. On 26 Jan 94, the rater advised that, while it was his opinion the break in service was a factor in the applicant’s nonselection, it was impossible to say how negatively it, or other factors, may have been viewed by the selection board. 

The applicant retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel on 1 Feb 01, with 28 years and 8 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEB notes the applicant has not provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level evaluation board as required. To change Section IV, the senior rater must demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF, in the record of performance which substantially impacted the content of the PRF, or in the process by which the PRF was crafted. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate he took corrective actions prior to the central selection board. These requirements have not been met and the appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPE addresses the applicant’s contention with regard to receiving training reports in lieu of OERs while attending AFIT and not having the opportunity to earn a three-star indorsement. They cite AFR 36-10, which specifically states an AF Form 475 (Training Report) is prepared by the School of Engineering, AFIT, for officers participating in the program. Further, the only grade requirement for the evaluator is to be serving in a grade equal to or higher than the ratee. Just as with current policy, all students attending AFIT at that time received mandatory AF Form 475s to document their training. The applicant was not arbitrarily chosen to receive a training report in lieu of an OER to specifically prevent him from getting a three-star indorsement. Also, to suggest that the policy prevented him from being promoted is not warranted as other AFIT attendees, who received training reports, have been promoted to the grade of colonel. As for his contention the Air Force elected not to write a report for the last performance period before his separation, leading to the omission of specific exceptional achievements from his records, AFM 36-10 states that OERs will not be submitted on officers who retire, resign or are released. The applicant resigned his commission, which in turn made him ineligible for a report to be rendered.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO notes the other two evaluations and adds that, regarding the applicant’s break in service from Jan 73 to Jun 79, the Air Force has many officers who for a variety of reasons do not follow a typical career path.  Many of these officers progress and do very well when meeting promotion boards. DPPPO believes the applicant received fair consideration for promotion to colonel by nine central selection boards. Promoting him outright would be an injustice to other officers who have had a break in service and are not afforded direct promotion.  The applicant’s situation is no more unique than those officers recalled to active duty with breaks in service, interservice transfers, and transfers from the Air Force Reserve or Guard. The applicant further alludes to ageism at the earlier boards when an officer’s photo was filed in his record. However, DPPPO indicates their role is not to substantiate whether discrimination occurred but rather to review the evidence provided and determine whether the reports were rendered and the process was followed fairly and in accordance with the governing directive. The applicant has not provided conclusive evidence to show his record contained comments and recommendations that were not rendered in good faith by evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time. Without access to all the competing records and an appreciation of their content, DPPPO continues to believe 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 the SSB process has been deemed to be totally unworkable. The applicant’s case clearly does not warrant direct promotion and should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends HQ AFPC merely made sweeping generalities and did not address the substance of whether the subject PRF properly represented his performance and performance-based potential. He began affirmative action for redress as soon as his rater told him his break in service was “the” reason he was not promoted. HQ AFPC did not specifically address the proven reality of institutional bias in his case. For numerous Air Force promotion boards before (but not for his), there needed to be an explicit charge to the board not to let break-in-service bias from playing out in promotion results. HQ AFPC did not dispute this. Proven institutional bias gives a possible explanation for the muting of material achievements and performance that should have appeared in his PRF. HQ AFPC did not deny that the Air Force values its youthful image and apparently stipulated the potential for systemic ageism in not addressing the disappearance of the requirement for a photograph at subsequent boards. As this type of discrimination is unthinkable against gender or race, it should not be tolerated against those answering a recall to duty. While some AFIT attendees may have been promoted to colonel, few ran into the unique hurdles he experienced and has enumerated. The Board should consider the diluting impact that the lack of an OER before retirement and the AFCM on subsequent records, boards and professional school lists. He was the only squadron commander in his major command left in place after non-selection despite a CINC’s direct order and in position for over a year and one-half. He waited until retirement to file this appeal because of the atmosphere of reprisal and retribution.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant direct promotion to the grade of colonel.  The applicant contends, in part, that his PRF did not reflect his performance and potential, his career path gave him less opportunity than his peers to get three-star indorsements on his performance reports, and irregularities in the Air Force board process, such as alleged bias against breaks in service and age, deprived him of due process and promotion. He also complains that he should have received OERs instead of TRs during his AFIT tour. However, neither the applicant’s submission, including statements from former rating chain members, nor the available evidence upholds his assertions. The CY92A PRF senior rater explained to the applicant that promotion boards are charged to exercise fair and impartial treatment. He added that an individual’s perception that a break in service was considered a negative factor is only that--a perception--and cannot justify additional consideration. Similarly, while levels of indorsement can be construed negatively, such an estimation is based on conjecture and not facts. Level of indorsement is only one of the many factors in an officer’s record weighed by a promotion board. The senior rater concluded there was insufficient rationale to justify rewriting/upgrading the PRF.  In his statement, the rater of the 1 May 92, 1 May 93, and 11 Apr 94 OPRs noted that while a personnelist, or anyone else, may easily attribute a particular judgment to a promotion board regarding a nonselection, this did not signify the board, in fact, relied on the supposed judgment. While the rater conceded the break in service was a factor in the applicant’s nonselection, he found it impossible to determine how negatively it, and the applicant’s lack of a Pentagon assignment, were viewed by the promotion boards. These statements reflect the crux of our conclusion that the applicant has not made his case. As indicated in the Board Member Feedback chart the applicant provided, selection boards weigh many factors in their total evaluation of an officer’s potential. The applicant had certain strengths and weaknesses, like all officers, and he has not shown that he was denied full and fair promotion consideration by the nine selection boards that reviewed his records. We would also point out to the applicant that he shares a certain amount of responsibility for his career path in that his break in service was completely his choice, his assignment at Scott AFB lasted nearly nine years, and his record reflects no Air Staff tour. However, like the applicant, we are speculating. In any event, he has not established that his record was superior to selected competitors or that the promotion boards and SSBs arbitrarily eliminated him because of bias. As for his argument that he should have received performance reports rather than TRs while he 

attended AFIT, he presents no basis for granting him special treatment as an exception to past and current policy requiring that TRs, and not OPRs, document the training of all students attending AFIT. The applicant also has not shown that, as another exception to policy, he should have received an additional performance report prior to his 1973 voluntary separation. Regarding the photo issue, given the fact that all officers had pictures in their jackets until 1995, and the applicant still had six promotion considerations without a photograph, we fail to see how this makes a case for discrimination. In the final analysis, neither the applicant nor we know conclusively why he was not selected. Further, he submits no persuasive evidence demonstrating that he should have been promoted because his record was superior to his competition, the PRFs and performance reports were erroneously rendered, he was somehow entitled to three-star indorsements, or the factors weighed by the nine selection boards and the SSBs were inappropriate or discriminatory. We can understand the applicant’s frustration and disappointment in his repeated nonselections, but promotion to colonel is extremely competitive and many good officers like him are vying for a limited number of promotions. In conclusion, the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice and, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought   

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 8 July 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00070 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 14 May 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 14 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jun 03.