RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01633
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel as if selected by the Calendar Year 2001 (CY01) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was at a disadvantage to have his performance and standing stratified amongst his peers because his peer branch chiefs were all lieutenant colonels (0-5s) and he had to compete for a “definitely promote” promotion recommendation against eight majors who were sitting squadron commanders.

Because of the confidence his supervisor had in his abilities and suitability for promotion, he was selected to fill a demanding position on the Air Staff even after his nonselection for promotion.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a letter of support from his commander/supervisor, copies of his performance feedback forms, and a copy of a message providing information on the CY01 STARNOM Award nomination procedures.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of major.  He has three nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5 Nov 01), CY02B (12 Nov 02), and CY03A (8 Jul 03) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant has presented insufficient evidence of an error or injustice.  The results of his CY01B promotion board were based on a complete review of his complete record, documenting 15 plus years of service, assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and education.  Although the applicant may have been qualified for promotion, he might not have been the best qualified of other eligible officers competing for the limited number of promotion vacancies in the judgment of the selection board vested with discretionary authority to make such decisions.  To directly promote the applicant would be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records but did not get promoted.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force advisory, applicant states AFPC/DPPPO asserts that insufficient evidence was presented to indicate probable injustice, but does not specifically address any of the evidence attached to his appeal.  Applicant stresses the efforts of his commander to get him an Air Staff assignment and the view of his rater, a full colonel, that he should have been promoted.  Applicant indicates he is only required to show he was above the 34th percentile in his in-the-promotion-zone year group and believes AFPC/DPPPO is applying an incorrect standard of proof in his case.  Applicant further addresses the issue of stratification and AFPC/DPPPO’s assertion the central selection board provided a complete and thorough review of his entire record, considered the whole person and attained a full and comprehensive picture of his service.  The applicant provides his view of the promotion process and discusses the importance of stratification under the current system.  Finally the applicant discusses direct promotion as a viable remedy by the Board in his case.

The applicant’s complete submission 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  While we note the applicant’s view that AFPC/DPPPO failed to specifically address any of the evidence attached to his appeal, we agree with their basic determination that the applicant should not be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  The applicant argues he was above the 34th percentile within his in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) year group and thus should have been promoted.  However, he was handicapped by his rater’s inability to stratify his performance due to his being assigned with an “elite IPZ group of eight.”  As proof of his assertion, he provides a letter from his rater addressed to the CY03A lieutenant colonel promotion board stating, “at best, stratification on his performance report was a challenge” and that the applicant’s situation was made more difficult due to his competing for a “Definitely Promote” promotion recommendation among eight majors who were sitting squadron commanders.  In assessing the rater’s statement, we note no mention that the applicant was not fairly rated and stratified based on his performance at the time.  Although the rater opines the applicant deserved promotion, he does not indicate the applicant was not given a fair opportunity for promotion along with his contemporaries.  The applicant makes much of the efforts expended to get him an assignment on the Air Staff following his nonselection for promotion.  We do not find anything inconsistent with these efforts and the applicant’s prior nonselection for promotion.  After all the rater was in a prime position to know and have confidence in the applicant’s performance capabilities.  We do not agree, however, he was in a position to know who was best qualified for selection for promotion by the promotion board.  We believe this determination is best left to a board of officers empowered by law to make such decisions.  To determine that the promotion board has failed to fairly carry out their mandate requires a level of proof the applicant’s evidence fails to meet.  We further note that while the applicant may have been in a very elite group regarding stratification of his performance, he was considered for promotion within a much larger group, which one could reasonably assume had other officers similarly situated.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 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-2004-01633 in Executive Session on 2 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 31 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 4 Oct 04.