RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00758
				INDEX CODE:  131.00
				COUNSEL:  YES

				HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 SEPTEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for Calendar Year 2002 (CY02) be changed to a “Definitely Promote” (DP).

2.	He receive promotion consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY02 CSB or he receive a direct promotion.

3.	His pay files be corrected accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Deputy Chief of Evaluation Programs Branch admittedly factored him on the weight control program at the 2002 Chaplains Colonel Management Level Review (MLR) when in actuality he was not on the weight control program.  He also states the Air Force Deputy Chief of Chaplains made a derogatory comment against African American chaplains which resulted in the chaplain system sending minorities to senior service schools and promotable assignments with little regard to their actual performance.  He believes that this reverse discrimination against white officers created an institutional bias toward minorities over whites in the Chaplain Corps.

In support of his appeal, applicant and counsel submitted a statement, character letters and AF IMT 3538 (Retention Recommendation Form).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col).

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY02B, CY03B, CY04C and CY06C Colonel CSBs.

The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a lt col is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			       25 Apr 99			Meets Standards
			       25 Apr 00			Meets Standards
			       25 Apr 01			Meets Standards
			       25 Apr 02			Meets Standards
			       25 Apr 03			Meets Standards
			        1 Apr 04			Meets Standards
			        1 Apr 05			Meets Standards
			        1 Apr 06			Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the requested relief be denied.  DPPPE states the applicant’s PRF was never downgraded to a “P” recommendation nor was there any compromise of the MLR process.  His records were presented to a panel of three line general officers and two chaplain colonels along with 13 other officers from different Management Levels across the Air Force.  The records were scored based on merit and each panel member reviewed the Record of Performance (ROP), input from the respective senior rater by reviewing the PRF submitted by the senior rater and duty qualification and history brief which is a synopsis of an officer’s career.  There were two “DP” allocations to be awarded and the applicant was not in the top two after the records were scored and the order of merit was completed and therefore a “P” was given to the applicant and his PRF was marked accordingly.

AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends the requested relief be denied.  DPPPO states the applicant received a fair consideration for a “DP” recommendation and that the weight management program was not a factor in the promotion process.  DPPPO further states the results of the CY02B board were based on a complete review of the applicant’s entire selection records, assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and education.

Although an officer may be qualified for promotion, he may not be the best qualified of other eligible officers competing for the limited number of promotion vacancies in the judgment of a selection board.

Furthermore, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records but did not get promoted.

AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant and counsel on 27 April 2007, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, the Board agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or an injustice.  The applicant is requesting his records be changed to reflect he received a “DP” and consideration for a direct promotion or an SSB.  The Board found no evidence submitted or in the applicant’s records that led them to believe he did not receive full and fair consideration for a “DP” during the MLR process.  It appears to the Board that the records presented before the promotion board were reviewed based on the applicant’s entire selection record.  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 RECOMMENDS 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00758 in Executive Session on 8 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Officer Selection Brief.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Apr 07.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 Apr 07.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Apr 07.

					
					Panel Chair