RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-01020
INDEX CODE:  131.01
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXX-XX-XXXX				     HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His records meet a Special Selection Board (SSB) for Calendar Year 01B (CY01B) (5 Nov 01) (P0501B) central lieutenant colonel selection board.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records would not have been disqualified for promotion had he been able to apply for early removal of his Article 15 from his P0501B Officer Selection Brief (OSR).  

In support of his application, he provides a copy of his P0501B Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) and a copy of his Mission Support Squadron’s memorandum dated 26 June 2002, concerning the CY02B Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central Selection Board.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system (MilPDS), the applicant is a rated officer who was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 12 August 1986, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 1 February 1987.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 3 June 1994 and was progressively promoted to the grade of major (0-4) with a date of rank of 1 July 1998.  He has an established Date of Separation (DOS) of 31 January 2007.

The applicant received an Article 15 punishment on 14 April 1997, for driving under the influence of alcohol.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $200 pay per month for two months.

The applicant has three non-selections to the grade of Lt Col by the CY01B (5 Nov 01)(P0501B), the CY02B (12 Nov 02) (P0502B), and the CY03A (8 Jul 03) (P0503A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings commencing with the report closing 1 May 1992:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL EVALUATION

	 1 May 92					Meets Standards (MS)
	30 Jan 93						  MS
	30 Jan 94						  MS
	30 Jan 95						  MS
	30 Jan 96						  MS
	30 Jan 97						  MS
	30 Sep 97						  MS
	30 Sep 98 (Major)				  MS
	 8 May 99						  MS
	 8 May 00						  MS
	 8 May 01						  MS
	 8 May 02						  MS

On 12 August 2002, his commander requested the applicant’s Article 15 be removed from his officer selection record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO states that the applicant’s request to remove the Article 15 from his P0501B OSR, as a result of a policy change pertaining to early removal of an Article 15 from an officer’s OSR, is unfounded.  A request to remove an officer’s Article 15 from his OSR is considered early if it is prior to the officer’s In-the-Promotion-Zone (IPZ) or Above-the-Promotion-Zone (APZ) promotion consideration.  AFI 36-2608 implements the 1997 Interim Change Memorandum which gives wing commanders, or imposing commanders (review authority who directed placement of the Article 15 in the OSR) authority to direct early removal of the Article 15 from the OSR at any time.  If the wing commander or imposing commander does not request direct removal of the Article 15 from the OSR, the member may petition AFPC/DPPBR for removal of the Article 15 from their OSR, but only after one IPZ or APZ promotion consideration.  The request from his commander to remove the applicant’s Article 15 was after his IPZ (CY01B) promotion consideration.  The request was approved and filed on 26 August 2002, and therefore, the Article 15 was not part of the applicant’s OSR for his APZ (CY02B) promotion consideration.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant claims he was not aware of the instruction to request early removal of an Article 15 from an OSR.  Had he known of the instruction, he would have advocated for early removal of his Article 15.  He feels the Article 15 should have been removed prior to his records meeting the (CY01B) central lieutenant colonel selection board as demonstrated by his commander’s decision to remove it a year later.  He questions if retention in the Air Force is an issue, how can one mistake of a captain affect his future based on arbitrary instruction.  He feels that a SSB should decide.  The applicant’s rebuttal 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.  We note that on 21 April 1997 the applicant’s commander imposed non-judicial punishment on the applicant for driving under the influence of alcohol.  His commander also notified the applicant that the Article 15 would be placed in his officer HQ USAF Selection Record and Officer Command Selection Record.  We note that AFI 36-2608 states that record of an Article 15 punishment for officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below, is maintained on file in the individual’s selection record until the officer is afforded one IPZ or APZ consideration unless the commander requests an earlier removal of the Article 15.  If the commander does not request removal, the member may petition for early removal of the Article only after one IPZ or APZ consideration.  In this case, the applicant’s commander requested removal of the Article 15 after the applicant’s IPZ (CY01B) promotion consideration.  There is nothing in the evidence provided here showing that the applicant’s commander acted improperly or to indicate he wanted the Article 15 removed prior to the date of his request.  In view of the above, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the applicant’s request for SSB consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

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 23 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01020 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 03, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 29 Apr 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 16 Jun 03.

						
									Panel Chair