RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01087
		INDEX CODE:  131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Special Selection Board (SSB) process is unable to render a fair and an unbiased promotion decision in his case.  Statistical analysis of promotion rates clearly indicates an anomaly when a member with a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation is not selected for promotion.  The promotion selection process is inconsistent with the design of the promotion system if a member is not promoted with a DP.  Since 1989 when the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was introduced, the promotion rate of members with a DP recommendation is 99.7%.  The message the senior rater sends to the promotion board is clear and the board accepts at face value the commander's intent.  Clearly the SSB made an error by not selecting his record with a DP recommendation for promotion.  

The SSB procedures did not safeguard anonymity to ensure an unbiased score and promotion recommendation.  The 22 Sep 03 SSB board could identify his record as the approved correction resulted in replacement of the faulty PRF.  The P0599B Central Selection Board (CSB), during which his uncorrected record was initially reviewed, yielded a 100% promotion rate for members with a DP.  As such, the corrected record was easily identifiable as the corrected record.  

CSBs and SSBs view records with a DP recommendation differently.  If a member is awarded a DP recommendation following a record correction it is considered a "non-competitive" DP and does not merit the same consideration that a DP awarded before the CSB does.  The SSB scores records differently than the CSB because the two processes do not mirror each other.  Therefore, one must conclude that members considered for promotion by SSB are not afforded the same promotion consideration, as they would have by a CSB.  

An error that was previously corrected was put back in his record for the SSB consideration.  The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) duty history omitted his upgrade to evaluator status on the 17 May 90 entry.  Evaluator duty is a critical step in the rated officer's career path.  If a member is not selected for Evaluator duty it sends a negative message.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) approved the correction to his military record on 24 Jan 01.  His corrected report was in his record for the SSB.  He requested an "Officer SURF" using the AMSWEB.  The duty history on the product is correct and he assumed the SSB would have a correct product to score.  His request for correction of his military records was based on this omission.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, position papers, documentation associated with previous correction to his records, documentation associated with his ERAB appeal, his OSB, career path information, and a SURF.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.  

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 19 Jul 83.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 96.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B, CY00A, CY01B, and CY02B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.  He was considered and not selected for promotion by the CY99B board at the 7 May 01 and 22 Sep 03 SSBs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO states a DP recommendation is just that, a recommendation.  CSB or SSB members are empanelled as an independent body to factor the senior rater's recommendation into their assessments of the officer's record.  If in their collective evaluation an officer is deemed neither best nor fully qualified for promotion, then the officer will not be promoted regardless of the senior rater's recommendation.  The PRF and its recommendation is the senior rater's input to the board concerning the officer's job performance.  A selection board is not bound to promote an officer with a DP if the record does not warrant promotion.  In the view of the SSB, his record as measured against the whole person concept and in comparison to the identified benchmark records was not of sufficient quality to warrant promotion.  Regarding his contention a duty title error which was previously corrected was put back in his record for the 22 Sep 03 SSB, DPPPO states, through the ERAB he requested a correction to his duty title on his 30 Nov 90 OPR.  The ERB approved the request and the corrected report was filed appropriately in his selection record.  There is no evidence to support that he specifically took action to correct the duty history reflected on the OSB that met the original board.  Therefore, the claim that the error was put back in his record is inaccurate.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states DPPPO's statement that he was not selected for promotion four times is prejudicial and misleading.  Officers not selected for promotion in their primary zone are seldom selected above the zone for promotion.  During the normal promotion process virtually 100% of officers with a DP recommendation are promoted.  During the CY99B board, 100% of officers with a DP recommendation were promoted.  Applicant believes that in the opinion of the SSB he did not deserve a DP and it was discounted completely.  Otherwise, he would have been selected for promotion.  The only way to get a fair result is to hold the promotion board again and review all the records under the same time constraints as the original board.  

The Duty History on the "as met" copy of his record that met the SSB was not correct.  He bases his statements to that effect on the copy he was provided with no intent to mislead or deceive the Board.  His 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence an error or injustice that would warrant partial relief in this case.  In this respect, evidence provided substantiates that an error existed on the applicant's OSB prepared for the 22 Sep 03 SSB.  The 17 May 90, Assignment History entry incorrectly reflects his duty title as "EC-C135 Instructor Navigator" when it should have reflected "EC-C135 Instructor/Evaluator Navigator."  As a consequence of the above, his records were not correct at the time he was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB on 22 Sep 03.  We carefully considered his request that he be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel; however, after reviewing the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that direct promotion is warranted.  The applicant's contentions regarding the statutory compliance of Special Selection Boards (SSBs) are duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  As an aside, we are also keenly aware that the court has recently determined in Haselrig v. United States that the procedures utilized by the Air Force in conducting SSBs constitute a permissible interpretation of the statute and a proper means to carry out the statutory requirements.  In addition, the court determined the methodology used by the Air Force in selecting the benchmark records and the scoring requirements were all proper under both the statute, 10 U.S.C. 628, and the applicable Air Force regulation, Air Force Instruction 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, paragraph 6.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, it is our opinion that the most appropriate and fitting relief is to place his corrected record before an SSB for consideration.  Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Duty Title, effective 17 May 1990, be changed to reflect "EC-C135 INSTRUCTOR/EVALUATOR NAVIGATOR" on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year 1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

It is further recommended that his record, to include the above corrected OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY99B board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01087 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 04, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 3 Nov 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 19 Nov 04.

					

AFBCMR BC-2004-01087

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Duty Title, effective 17 May 1990, be changed to reflect "EC-C135 INSTRUCTOR/EVALUATOR NAVIGATOR" on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year 1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

	It is further directed that his record, to include the above corrected OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY99B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.