RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01483
		INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be promoted to the Reserve grade of major by the FY05 Line and Health Professions Major Position Vacancy Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She met all requirements for position vacancy to major, is filling a major billet and has completed over four years time in grade.  She has completed professional military education (PME) where others who were selected for promotion to major had not completed PME.

In support of her request, the applicant submitted a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant currently serves in the Air Force Reserves in the grade of captain.  Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the FY05 Line and Health Professions Major Position Vacancy Selection Board that convened on 9 February 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial.  The fact sheet for this particular selection board clearly shows no one was selected without Squadron Officer’s School (SOS), the appropriate level of PME for this promotion board.  No error was alleged and after careful review, there appears to be no error in the applicant’s record.  If there was no error in her record, then no injustice occurred.  The quota driven process allowed promotion for 75% of those officers considered.  It appears, based on the results of the board in question, that board members ranked the applicant’s record below that of officers promoted by the board.

The DPB complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 May 04, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, the Board majority is not persuaded by the evidence presented in support of her appeal that she was denied a fair opportunity to compete successfully for promotion.  Based on the results of the selection board no one was selected without completion of Squadron Officer School, which was the appropriate level of PME for this Board.  Therefore, the Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2004-01483 in Executive Session on 15 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  (Mr. recused himself.)  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 13 May 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 19 Jan 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.