RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00241
		INDEX CODE:  131.09

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of colonel as though selected by the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His nonselection for promotion to the grade of colonel was the result of two inconsistencies present in his record.  First, the rater of his 24 Dec 98 Officer Performance Report (OPR) convinced the additional rater to deliberately omit the statement “Promote ahead of contemporaries and recommend command.”  Second, he was unjustly given a “Promote” rather than a “Definitely Promote” (DP) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, copies of his last five OPRs, his CY00A PRF, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a captain, Reserve of the Air Force, on 2 Jun 86 and voluntarily ordered to extended active duty.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 23 Oct 87.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1989 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 1 Mar 89	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 90	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 91	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 92	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 93	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 94	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 95	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 96	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 97	Meets Standards
	 1 Mar 98	Meets Standards
	24 Dec 98	Meets Standards
  #	24 Dec 99	Meets Standards

# Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY00A Colonel Board.

Applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 Jan 01 and retired for length of service, effective 1 Feb 01, in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  He was credited with 21 years, 4 months, and 8 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE indicated the applicant did not provide any supporting documentation proving the validity of the comments made in his OPR were in any way questionable or an inaccurate assessment.  He also did not provide any evidence he was not properly considered during the Management Level Review (MLR) process.  Based on the lack of evidence the applicant’s 24 Dec 98 OPR and his CY00A PRF were in error or there was an injustice, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request for direct promotion.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO indicated that since promotion statements are not allowed to be written in an OPR and command pushes are optional inputs by the rating chain, an error did not exist in the applicant’s selection record considered by the CY00A board.  Furthermore, regarding the PRF, it is their opinion the applicant competed fairly for award of a “Definitely Promote” recommendation during the MLR process.  After a careful review of this appeal, AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for direct promotion.  In addition, since the applicant has not clearly demonstrated the OPR and PRF were in error or unjust, they do not believe SSB is warranted.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 7 May 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  We note that officers compete for promotion under the whole person concept whereby many factors are carefully assessed by selection boards.  An officer may be qualified for promotion but, 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.  No evidence has been presented which shows to our satisfaction the applicant was not fairly and equitably considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a duly constituted selection board applying the complete promotion criteria.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00241 in Executive Session on 15 Jun 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 27 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.

                                   Panel Chair