RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01907
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year 2006C (CY06C) Colonel Central Selection Board be corrected to show his assignment to Al Udeid AB, Qatar, in the “Deployment History” block and he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His in-the-primary zone (IPZ) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY06C board contained a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation.  Fourteen of fifteen Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) with IPZ DP’s were promoted.  Historically, since 1989, 173 of 174 IPZ JAG officers who received a DP recommendation have been promoted (excluding himself).  He understands a DP is not a guarantee of promotion, but as the statistics he presents indicate, it was enough of an aberration to cause him to closely review his “As Met” records and file this application for an SSB, based on incomplete information in his Officer Selection Brief (OSB).  His OSB did not indicate any deployment history in the separate “Deployment History” block.  He believes this was an error as he deployed in a permanent change of station (PCS) capacity to Al Udeid AB from July 2005 to July 2006.  The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) informed him his assignment to Al Udeid AB was considered a PCS and was therefore not reflected as a deployment on his OSB.  He believes this information was provided to him based on a misunderstanding of the rules and provides an erroneous picture to the board.  He believes those personnel who PCS to Southwest Asia in support of combat operations should have their OSB’s highlighted in the same manner that those who deploy in a temporary duty (TDY) capacity do.  In order to give the board an accurate picture of his deployment history, his OSB should have specifically referenced his assignment to Al Udeid AB under the “Deployment History” block of his OSB as is done for officers who have served in a deployed TDY status for up to a year.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement, copies of several Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), and documentation extracted from his personnel record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 2002.  He was considered and was not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the (CY06C) (28 Nov 06) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO states the applicants request to include his PCS assignment to Al Udeid Air Base in the deployment history section is unfounded.  As stated in the Military Personnel Flight Memorandum (MPFM) 05-55, dated 13 December 2005, only TDY Type 1, Contingency/rotational, or Type 2, Exercise Deployments, are displayed in the deployment history section.  Therefore, his PCS assignment is not authorized to be reflected in the deployment section of his CY06C OSB.  His PCS to Al Udeid AB was not only reflected in his 14 April 2006 OPR, it was also reflected in the assignment history block of the OSB.  Board members were therefore able to take his assignment to Al Udeid AB into consideration during the promotion selection process.  

DPPPO’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 July 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion of a lack of a deployment history on his OSB and the apparent fact that he is the only one of fifteen Judge Advocates who was not promoted, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The statistics he provides were presented with no firm evidence showing a link between his nonselection for promotion and an absence of a deployment history.  Especially since it appears information pertaining to his assignment to Al Udeid AB and the duties performed was available for consideration by the selection board members.  Additionally, his contention that selection boards consider records that show TDY’s to an area of responsibility (AOR) more favorably than those showing PCS’s to an AOR has not been supported by evidence of such.  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 conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of having suffered either an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01907 in Executive Session on 20 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01907:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 June 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 8 July 2007, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 July 2007.