RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00801
		INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B (3 December 2001) Central Colonel Selection Board (P0601B).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His supervisor/rater (Colonel XXXXX), who was one of the board members for the P0601B selection board, unfairly scored his record poorly.  He was informed by his supervisor that he had scored his record poorly because he did not like his [applicant’s] job sequence.  He realizes there is no policy against his supervisor sitting on the board and scoring his record.  However, he believes that his supervisor was unable to score his record without prejudice or partiality.

In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his letter to the Secretary of the Air Force, dated 5 August 2002, with attachments, a 29 August 2002 HQ AFPC/IG letter, his 6 September 2002 letter to SAF/IGQ, a 10 January 2003 SAF/IGS response, his follow-up electronic mail/letter to SAF/IG, and SAF/IG’s response.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) is 6 June 1980.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 August 1997.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		    8 Apr 98	Meets Standards (MS)
		    7 Mar 99		MS
		   28 Jul 99		MS
		    5 Jun 00	Education/Training Report
		#   5 Jun 01		MS
		##  5 Jun 02		MS

# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to colonel by the CY01B (P0601B) Central Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 3 December 2001.

## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to colonel by the CY02B (P9692B) Central Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 3 December 2002.

Information maintained in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reveals that the applicant currently has an established date of separation of 30 June 2008.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPB, recommends the application be denied.  DPPB stated that investigations conducted at HQ PACAF, HQ AFPC/IG and SAF/IGS have failed to produce evidence to support any wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of the board member in question.  Therefore, there appears to be no grounds for reconsideration for promotion via the Special Selection Board (SSB) process.  The HQ AFPC/DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO, recommends the application be denied based on the evidence provided and the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPB.  DPPPO reviewed the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPB evaluation and have nothing further to add.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/JA, recommends the application be denied.  JA indicated that the applicant has presented no proof that the actions of his former supervisor and other board members were improper and that the supervisor acted vindictively and without cause to render the applicant an unfair result at the promotion board.  There are no established criteria for board members to determine a promotable career path or promotability in general when assessing a record of performance at a central selection board.  The only criteria for the board members to utilize are those included in the Memorandum of Instructions.  JA stated that there is nothing in the Memorandum of Instructions or elsewhere in the law or governing directives that precludes a board member from considering the sequence of jobs in assessing a member’s suitability for promotion to the next higher grade.  There is no evidence introduced by the applicant or elsewhere in this file to suggest that the applicant’s supervisor acted improperly at the board or used improper criteria in making his assessment of the applicant’s record.  In JA’s opinion, no evidence has been provided to support the applicant’s assertions that his supervisor ignored his performance, that his decision was based on whatever was bothering him and that his supervisor’s focus was directed at destroying his career.  JA noted that the applicant’s P0601B PRF was authored by the PACAF vice commander and not the applicant’s supervisor.  JA also noted that the applicant’s 1999 OPR is no better with respect to stratification or any other aspect than the PRF meeting the 2001 board in question.  As a consequence, it is clear to JA that what the applicant perceives to be a downgraded PRF, as a result of the actions of his current supervisor, was really not an isolated occurrence in his record, but was essentially consistent with the record of performance that preceded it.  In summary, it is JA’s opinion that the applicant has failed to produce any evidence of an error or injustice in his record.  The claims he levied against his supervisor were reviewed by IG offices at several levels and determined not to contain evidence that would warrant any further investigation.  JA’s review of the record reveals that the criteria applicant claims were used by his supervisor in assessing the applicant’s record at the central selection board, even if true, did not constitute an improper basis for assessing the record or did not otherwise violate any of the instructions governing the performance of the selection board.  The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that he disagrees with the overall recommendations.  What his supervisor did and his reason for doing so, do not make sense and amount to an unfair evaluation at his Colonel (O-6) In-The-Promotion Zone (IPZ) board.  With regard to the IG offices responding to his inquiry, there is no indication that PACAF/IG responded to his inquiry.  The response came from the PACAF/CV and indicated PACAF/DP conducted the review.  By the time his package reached PACAF/IG, they indicated it had to be acted on by SAF/IG because he was already slated to move from PACAF/SC to the PACAF/IG staff.  Also, although PACAF/CV indicated PACAF/DP found no evidence of inappropriate behavior on the part of his supervisor, he did acknowledge a problem with the supervisor-subordinate relationship.  The letter from HQ AFPC/IG indicated they were sending his package to SAF/IGQ because of a potential policy violation.  SAF/IG responded, but they did not provide any basis for their decision.

Consider the specific sequence that his supervisor utilized as his reasoning to grade his record poorly.  That sequence contained the assignments that would put any Line of the Air Force Lt Col on the “best qualified” list using the “whole person” concept.  It is a fact that his supervisor moved him from command a year early.  By doing so, his supervisor knew he was sending a signal about his performance and leadership.  He visited his supervisor three times to try and figure out where the problem was with his performance--what went wrong and what he needed to do to demonstrate improvement.  On each occasion, his supervisor assured him that his performance was good, but he needed his expertise on the staff--he even made reference to that effect in his 2001 OPR.  His supervisor’s reason for grading his record poorly at the board was that he did not like his job sequence; he never mentioned anything about his job performance.

With regard to his supervisor’s offer to help get him promoted above-the-promotion zone (APZ), there was no credibility in his offer.  As to the PRF, it was indeed authored by the PACAF/CV (senior rater); however, it was drafted by his supervisor.  As his immediate supervisor, his input most likely weighted heavily since the OPR he wrote set the strategy for a weak bottom line on the PRF.  In conclusion, this situation cannot be generalized; the specific sequence is at the heart of the issue.  He proved himself in the jobs and positions that the Air Force holds at the top of their leadership pyramid.  To simply penalize him because he went to AWC before assuming command cannot be justified, especially since many other officers have taken the same path and were successfully promoted to O-6.  A complete copy of this 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the respective Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent evidence to the contrary, 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 this application in Executive Session on 28 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00801.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 24 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 24 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 5 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from Applicant, dated 6 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Chair