ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01421-2
INDEX CODE:  131.03 
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

In his application for reconsideration, he be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2003A (CY03A) Colonel (Chaplain) Central Selection Board (CSB).  

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is currently serving on active duty with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 24 March 1982 and a projected date of separation of 31 March 2010.  His current grade is lieutenant colonel with an effective date and a date of rank of 1 April 1999.  The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance ratings:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL EVALUATION 

	09 Jul 92 (Major)					MS
	03 May 93							MS
	30 Jun 94							MS
30 Jun 95							MS
	30 Jun 96							MS
30 Jun 97							MS
27 May 98							MS
27 May 99 (Lt Col)					MS
27 May 00							MS
27 May 01							MS
27 May 02							MS
27 May 03							MS
22 Mar 04							MS
22 Mar 05							MS
22 Mar 06							MS

The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY03B and the CY04C Colonel (Chaplain) CSBs, which convened on 27 October 2003 and 6 December 2004, respectively.

The applicant submitted a similar appeal, which was considered and denied by the Board on 14 October 2004.  The applicant contends the board membership for the CY03B Colonel (Chaplain) CSB was not properly constituted in that an African-American chaplain member was knowingly and willfully kept from participation by command in contravention of regulation.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G (with Exhibits A-F).

On 14 September 2005, the applicant’s counsel submitted a request for reconsideration.  In support of his request, he submits three declarations from senior chaplains, disagreeing with the Air Force advisory opinions and stating the promotion board was biased and flawed.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/JAA recommends denial of the applicant request for SSB consideration.  JAA states the evidence now offered for reconsideration is not “new” in the sense that it was available and existed, but was not obtained by the applicant when he first applied for relief from the AFBCMR, but rather, it is additional evidence newly provided apparently to corroborate his previously “uncorroborated assertion” noted by the AFBCMR.  The additional evidence provided by the applicant corroborates his prior submitted evidence that the manner in which his promotion board members were selected deviated from prior practice within the chaplaincy, but his promotion board was constituted in full compliance with the relevant statutes and regulations, and he has provided no evidence showing there was an error or injustice.  The implication that such a deviation somehow prejudiced the applicant in the promotion process is not supported by the additional evidence.  Even if the applicable statute and regulations required minority membership on his promotion board (which they do not), an African-American did sit as a voting member of his promotion board.  There is no evidence the fact that person was not a chaplain had any prejudicial effect on the applicant or beneficial effect for any of those who were promoted.  Further, even if the applicable statute and regulations required minority or female membership on his promotion board, the law does not afford the applicant or any other minority or female officer being considered for promotion the right to demand a specific minority or female individual or a minority or female from his or her specific career field.  

It is JAA’s opinion the applicant has failed to demonstrate the existence of any error or to present any facts or circumstances supporting an injustice.

The complete AF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit I.

AFGOMO recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  AFGOMO states the Selection Board Secretariat’s Chaplain Board requirement for an African-American board member from either the line of the Air Force or the Chaplain career field was met.

The complete AFGOMO evaluation is at Exhibit J.  

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel replies the “deviation” was not known to the chaplaincy at large.  In fact, the African-American colonel who should have sat on the promotion board was never contacted about the prospect of sitting on the board.  It is not enough for the government to meekly return to the Board with the rejoinder that a minority line officer who was appointed to the selection board met the statutory and regulatory requirements.  An African-American chaplain is going to know the reputation, ability, and efficacy of junior African-American chaplains far better than either a minority line officer or a Caucasian chaplain.  That is just the way it works.  To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.  At the risk of appearing flip, only someone who was never the subject of discrimination could have the audacity to suggest that the absence of an African-American voice familiar with the chaplaincy had no impact upon the selection process.  Why, pray tell, does the Board think the standing policy was to have a minority chaplain on such selection boards?  It was to protect the legitimate interests of minority chaplains whose promotion rates we have previously demonstrated were woefully behind the Caucasian rates.  The statements provided to the Board, coupled with the concession made by the Air Force that a deviation in protocol occurred, created not only the appearance of impropriety, but also actual impropriety.  To restore confidence in the chaplaincy promotion system and to do justice to the applicant, an SSB is required.  

The applicant rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit L.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Although the applicant has provided some letters by fellow chaplains agreeing with his contentions, we do not find these statements, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive so as to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility.  In our opinion and based on the facts of this case, we believe that the applicant has not established that he did not receive a fair and equitable consideration for promotion through the selection board process.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their conclusions as our findings in this case.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for SSB consideration is not favorably considered.  

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 this application in Executive Session on 14 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket No. BC-2004-01421-2:

    Exhibit G.  ROP, dtd 22 Nov 04, w/ Exhibits A through F.
    Exhibit H.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 11 Oct 05, w/atchs
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFGOMO, dtd 8 Dec 05.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AF/JAA, dtd 10 Nov 05.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 05.
    Exhibit L.  Counsel’s Rebuttal, dated 19 Jan 06, w/atchs.