RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01430
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  XXXXX

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 AUGUST 2006
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Direct promotion to the grade of colonel, backdated to the earliest date of rank.  In addition, award of appropriate decorations that have been improperly denied.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied promotion to the grade of colonel (O-6) in April 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because his commanders followed a program of long-term discrimination, failure to follow regulations, numerous violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and failure to follow Air Force Core Values.  These failures of command, procedure and discrimination resulted in his repeated denial of promotion.

The first Inspector General (IG) investigation established there were errors in the applicant’s official records and the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) action verified errors in his promotion file.  Since all of these errors cannot be corrected after the fact, no Special Selection Board (SSB) will be able to give his promotion file the review and consideration it deserved.

The only way an SSB would be a true reevaluation of the original selection board’s process would be if his records were corrected to the pristine condition that would have originally been presented to the board.  That would require correcting the R/R year and points earned, reaccomplishing his Officer Performance Report (OPR) to show his actual activities, duties and lack of Performance Feedback, awarding decorations prior to the SSB and completing a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).

He has exhausted all other avenues of correction.  His attempts to have this situation corrected resulted in two flawed IG investigations, conciliatory thoughts from commanders and other serious failures in the correction process.

In support of his request, the applicant submits two applications, which contain counsel’s revised application, with Brief, applicant’s personal statement, compact discs and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reveals the applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) as 1 June 1977.  He was promoted to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel, with an effective date and date of rank of 15 October 1997.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile follows:

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		   15 May 98	Meets Standards (MS)
		    9 Apr 99	     MS
		#   9 Apr 00	     MS
		##  9 Apr 01	     MS
		### 9 Apr 02	     MS
		####9 Apr 03	     MS
		    9 Apr 04	     MS

# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to colonel by the FY01 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2000.

## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to colonel by the FY02 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2001.

### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to colonel by the FY03 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2002.

#### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to colonel by the FY04 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2003.

The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the FY01 and FY03 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel’s Promotion Selection Boards.

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reveals the applicant’s current status as retired, awaiting pay, effective 2 July 2005.  He has completed a total of 27 years, 1 month and 1 day of satisfactory Federal service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied.  DPB states that, in accordance with the governing instruction, when the rater cannot observe the ratee personally, he should get meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources as possible.  While it may be true the raters in question may not have observed actual performance, it can be assumed the applicant provided input and the raters obtained information from as many sources as possible because the OPRs were accomplished.  OPRs are due for placement in an Officer Selection Record (OSR) 90 days following close-out of the report.  It was noted that the applicant’s OPRs from both his Category A unit assignment and his Category E Civil Air Patrol (CAP) assignment were consistently late to his OSR.  If a late OPR negatively impacts a selection board, HQ ARPC/DPB evaluates the record for SSB consideration, provided the officer requests a review of his/her selection record and an error (the late OPR) is established.  DPB indicates they did not receive any contact from the applicant concerning nonselection and possible errors in his record.  DPB states that feedback and PRF preparation do not depend on an OPR being filed in an officer’s selection record.  Feedback occurs approximately midway between OPRs.  The ratee is required to know when feedback sessions are due and to request feedback if none is forthcoming.  Information contained in a PRF documents an officer’s entire career, not just the most recent year.  The senior rater prepares the PRF by reviewing the officer’s entire selection record plus any needed information from the rater addressing performance since the close-out of the last OPR in the OSR.

With regard to the IG inspections, DPB indicates the IG response of 23 February 2004 reveals the applicant’s other issues are more appropriately handled in command channels and he was provided a specific officer to contact or he could choose someone from his chain of command.  It does not appear the applicant chose to surface these complaints with the individuals or organizations recommended by the HQ AETC/IG.  SAF/IGQ and the Special Inquiries Directorate of the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office reviewed the case and concurred that further investigation was not warranted under 10 USC, Section 1034.  DPB states that any questions regarding the IG results should be addressed by the appropriate office.

As to the decorations, DPB states that under normal circumstances, most members are evaluated for awards and decorations at permanent change of station (PCS) or approximately every three years.  Reserve members do not often PCS, so the every three years is the “rule-of-thumb” used by many Reserve organizations.  An officer who has not received recent recognition is encouraged to address this with their supervisor.  Ultimately, it is the chain of command who determines who does or does not receive recognition…it is not automatic.  LOMs are afforded to colonels (O-6) only.

The applicant was considered but nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the FY01, FY02, FY03 and FY04 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively.

DPB states there were OPRs missing from the applicant’s selection folder.  Based on this application, DPB audited his record and found the applicant’s selection folder that met the FY01 and FY03 colonel promotion boards did not have the appropriate OPRs filed.  Therefore, DPB awarded SSBs in-lieu-of the FY01 and FY03 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel’s Promotion Selection Boards.

Utilizing the “whole person concept” the applicant’s record has been considered by four separate selection boards.  Based on his performance during his entire career, board members have not found the applicant as qualified for additional responsibility and promotion as they have found those officers selected for greater responsibility and promotion.  However, because of errors noted in the applicant’s record, he met two SSBs in replacement of two boards.

The HQ ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 11 June 2004 for review and response (Exhibit D).

On 26 July 2004, the applicant requested that his application be withdrawn.  By revised application, dated 10 February 2005, counsel requested that the applicant’s appeal be reopened for consideration by the Board.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force office adequately address those allegations.  In this respect, we note the applicant was provided SSB consideration based on missing OPRs from his selection folder.  We have seen no evidence showing what attempts he made to ensure his record was complete before he met the two SSBs.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 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.  However, should the applicant submit information demonstrating his attempts to have a PRF accomplished prior to the selection board in question and provided he submits a PRF for inclusion in his record, the Board may be willing to reconsider his appeal.   In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 issue(s) 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 9 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01430.

   Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 10 Feb 05, w/atchs, and
               28 Apr 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and IG
               Documents, withdrawn.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 4 Jun 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 04.