RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC 2003-00356
INDEX CODE:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXX-XX-XXXX			          HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His records be changed to reflect his promotion to the grade of colonel (O-6) with his peers.  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His referral OPR closing 30 April 1995 and the subsequent removal of that OPR by the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records (AFBCMR) was a “poison pill” that doomed his potential for promotion.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of AFSOC/CV letter dated 16 July 2002; a copy of AFBCMR letter dated 17 April 1997 with attachments; a copy of his AF Form 724A, Field Grade Officer Performance Feedback Worksheet; a copy of his AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation; a copy of Memo for Record dated 19 September 1995; and copies of his officer evaluation history.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant graduated from the Air Force Academy and was appointed a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force on 2 June 1976.  He was a rated officer who was progressively promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel (O-5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1992.  The following is a resume of his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) while serving in that grade:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL RATING

	 21 Oct 1992			  Meets Standards (MS)
	 21 Oct 1993					 MS
	 31 Jul 1994					 MS
    * 30 Apr 1995				  AF Form 77
	 30 Apr 1996					 MS
	 15 Nov 1996					 MS
    #  3 Sep 1997					 MS
	  4 Jun 1998					 MS

NOTE:  * - Report removed from the record on 6 May 1997 based
           on the favorable consideration of the applicant’s
           appeal by the AFBCMR.

       # - Top report on file at the CY97B Central Colonel
           Selection Board, which convened on 8 December 1997.

Pursuant to his 16 June 1998 application, the applicant was honorably relieved from active duty on 31 October 1998 and voluntarily retired, effective 1 November 1998.  He had served 22 years, 4 months, and 29 days on active duty. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of direct promotion consideration due to lack of merit.  DPPPO states the application was not filed in a timely manner.  The applicant had one nonselection to the grade of Colonel by the CY97B (8 Dec 97) (P0697B) central colonel selection board.  DPPO stated that in the past, and hopefully in the future, the Board would consider promotion only in the most extraordinary circumstances where a Special Selection Board (SSB) has been deemed to be totally unworkable.  It is DPPPO’s opinion that the applicant’s record clearly does not warrant direct promotion, nor does it warrant further SSB consideration.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant claims the DPPPO’s opinion does not address the specific basis for his request for redress based on a belief that the promotion board’s scoring of his promotion folder was unduly biased by the removed OPR.  He states the advisory opinion does not address his allegation of injustice nor does it provide the required instructions of specific corrective actions to be taken should the Board grant the application.  The applicant’s review 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  Based on a previous application, this Board removed a performance report from applicant’s records.  He now contents that this was a “poison pill” that doomed his potential for promotion.  We disagree with his contention for the following reasons.  This Board has found that numerous officers who have had a performance report or even several reports removed from their records have successfully competed for promotion.  Also, we note that selection boards use the whole person concept to subjectively assess each eligible officer’s potential to serve in the next higher grade.  While an officer may be qualified for promotion, in the judgment of a selection board, vested with the discretionary authority to make the selections, may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  A Secretarial promotion, in our view, is appropriate only if it can be clearly shown that an individual cannot receive fair and equitable consideration for promotion.  In our opinion and based on the facts of this case, we believe that the applicant has received fair and equitable consideration for promotion through the selection board process.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend approval of the relief requested.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 27 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC 2003-00356 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 03, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Mar 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 25 Apr 03.

						
									Vice Chair