RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00171
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Selection Board, with inclusion of his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 22 May 88 through 21 May 90.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR were missing from his records when he was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Board that was held in Jun 02.  A careful review of his officer preselection brief (OPB) prior to the board did not reveal the error.  The error presented as a minimum an incomplete history of his military performance as an officer and reflected a lack of attention to detail in ensuring that a complete package was presented to the board.  The missing report could have raised questions in the board members' mind about his performance during those two years, effectively lowering his overall rating.  A position vacancy selection is highly competitive; therefore, an error of this magnitude could have had adverse implications in the selection process of the board.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, 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 8 Aug 98.  He has been credited with 27 years, 8 months, and 17 days of satisfactory federal service for retirement.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1988 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	21 May 88	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *	821 May 90	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 92	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 93	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 94	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 95	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 96	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 97	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 98	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 99	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 00	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  #  21 May 01	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
	21 May 02	Meets Standards (NON-EAD)

* Contested Report.

# Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the FY03 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommended denial indicating that an OPB can in no way provide information concerning OPRs.  While each officer is provided a copy of the OPB, they are strongly encouraged to review the contents of their selection folder for just such omissions.  If the applicant had reviewed his selection record within the last 12 years, he would have immediately noticed the omission and resolved the problem prior to this current selection board.

ARPC/DPB noted that the OPR in question was completed while the applicant was a first lieutenant.  Since 1990, the applicant has successfully been promoted to the grade of captain (where the missing OPR would have been the second OPR from the top) and to major (the missing OPR would have been the seventh from the top).

As the applicant has already successfully competed for promotion twice, ARPC/DPB does not believe that the absence of this one document was a strong factor.  According to ARPC/DPB, selection boards must use the “whole person” concept to arrive at a decision for promotability of any officer.  OPRs are just one part of the equation.  Other factors include participation, awards and decorations, academic and professional military education, and the actual report of how well the officer accomplished their assigned tasks.

In ARPC/DPB's view, with due diligence and attention to his record, the applicant could have discovered the error within the past 12 years.  As he has already been promoted twice without this piece of information, there must have been other areas in the “whole person” concept that impacted the decision of the selection board members.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that he accepts full credit for not checking his selection folder prior to the board.  Having twice been selected for promotion, he had an obvious false impression that his selection folder was in proper order.  However, in hindsight, his reliance on the system was not a wise choice in this case.  His promotions to the grades of captain and major were mandatory promotions, while his consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel was a position vacancy promotion.  Promotions at this level and in a position vacancy status are much more competitive than at the two previous ranks.  Because of the missing OPR, a complete record representing his total performance history and potential was not presented.  Just as a promotion should be based on the whole person concept, it should also be based on a complete record.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  We note that the applicant’s OPR closing 21 May 90 has been a matter of record for over 12 years.  Furthermore, no evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that the applicant exercised due diligence to ensure the accuracy of his record.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00171 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 3 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 Mar 03.