RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02034
		INDEX CODE:  131.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her results from the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Major Promotion Board be reversed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was a top notch participator during her career in the Reserves and the Guard, receiving numerous awards, including "Most Outstanding Aviator in the State of New Jersey".  Despite her exemplary record she was not promoted by the Fiscal Year 2007 Majors Board.  Based on the negligence of the recruiter and erroneous information provided by the leadership in the squadron, she did not get in-processed by the time the FY08 Reserve Promotion Board convened, nor did she receive the waiver she was promised when she did not get promoted.  Although she wanted a Category A (Traditional Unit Program, assigned to USAFR units) flying position, her top priority was to be promoted so she could continue with her military career.  Because of the misinformation she relied on and the resulting delay, she is now in a position where she cannot do so. 

In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal memorandum; supporting memorandums; ANGI 36-2005, Appointment In Commissioned Grades And Designation And Assignment In Professional Categories, Reserve Of The Air Force And United States Air Force.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant was commissioned in February 1991.  In February 2007, the applicant was considered but was not selected for promotion by the FY08 Reserve Major Promotion Board.  This was her second nonselection for promotion to major.  She is currently in the USAFR serving in the grade of captain, with a date of rank of 1 November 1998. 

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ CAANG/A1P states they cannot determine if the issues the applicant has taken exception to had any effect on her deferral for promotion.  It is likely that the promotion board reviewed her master record which likely included a Promotion Recommendation Form, Officer Performance Reports, and copies of awards and decorations earned, prior to making their decision.  Although administrative delays may have occurred during the processing of her appointment package, it is ultimately this most recent deferral that kept her from being appointed in the CAANG.  Incidentally, with experienced pilots being difficult to recruit and retain, it was disappointing to loose the opportunity to appoint her.  Based on her experience, continued service could benefit the United States Air Force and the Air National Guard (ANG) to a great degree.

The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit B.

NGB/A1POP states the applicant was deferred for promotion by the Air Force Reserves; therefore, there is no response the Air National Guard can make regarding her request.  Her request for the deferral to be removed has to be addressed by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC).

The complete A1POP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

NGB/A1POF recommends denial.  A1POF states because the applicant was deferred for promotion by the Air Force Reserves, the ANG has no response for her request.  Despite the best efforts of all involved, the CAANG was unable to appoint her prior to the FY08 Air Force Reserve promotion board.  The results of the board revealed the applicant received a second deferral for promotion, which rendered her ineligible for appointment into the ANG.  A1POF concurs with A1POP and A1P's advisory.  The NGB cannot retroactively appoint her in the ANG. 

The complete A1POF evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating she requests the SSB consider her for promotion to the grade of major.  After she learned she was deferred for promotion to major after her first board, she contacted ARPC for promotion board counseling.  The counselor reviewed her package and indicated the main reason she was passed over was because she was in a Category E (Non-Pay Programs, ndividual Ready Reserve Program) position, a category position they seldom promote.  The counselor recommended she apply for a Category A or Category B, (Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) position). Although she had already applied for several flying positions, she started aggressively looking for a Category A position, including non-flying jobs.  Had she accepted any one of the positions she was offered at the 163rd Reconnaissance Wing (163 RW), California ANG, she would not have been in the Category E position at the time the second board convened.  If her recruiter had followed the guidelines of ANGI 36-2005, and submitted a Class II Returning to flying physical with her application she would have been appointed in the California ANG before the FY08 Reserve Major Selection Board convened.  Also, if the leader of the 163 RW did not repeatedly assure her that she would receive a waiver if she did not get promoted she would have accepted another Category A position offered to her once she realized that the flying physical error was made.  She did everything possible to ensure promotion on her second board to major so she could continue to serve in the military.  After the ARPC counseling session and discussions with her rater, she spent the majority of her available time looking for a Category A position that would also utilize her tactical experience.  She also chose a squadron and position that promised her a promotion.  However; she would not have selected this position in this squadron had it not ensured promotion.  Based on the errors and negligence on the part of the recruiter and the leadership at the 163rd RW she was placed in the very situation she was trying to avoid.  She ended up meeting the promotion board in the same Category E position as the first board.  As to be expected, she was not promoted.  She is a seasoned aviator with both heavy and fighter aircraft experience and has so much to offer with her experience, knowledge and commitment.  In addition, she has a position as a Predator Pilot waiting for her in a squadron in need of pilots with her level and type of experience.  

Her complete response with attachments is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial.  DPB states there is no apparent error in her Officer Selection Record (OSR) that could result in Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration in lieu of either the FY07 or FY08 USAFR Major Promotion Boards.  The applicant may have a valid issue with the timeliness of the application process and the errors that occurred during that process, those issues would not effect [sic} the results of the FY08 USAFR Major Promotion Board.  While the applicant is twice non-selected for promotion to major, the ANG is unable to tender an appointment. 

The complete DPB evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 December 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting favorable action on the applicant's request.  While it is not clear whether the applicant is requesting direct promotion to the grade of major or reconsideration by a Special Selection Board, we are not persuaded that either action is warranted in this case.  Officers compete for promotion under the whole person concept whereby a multitude of factors are carefully assessed by the selection board members prior to scoring the record.  In addition, an officer may be qualified, but - in the judgment of selection board members vested with discretionary authority to score their records - may not be the best qualified of those eligible for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Consequently, it is our opinion that a direct promotion should be granted only under extraordinary circumstances; i.e., a showing that the officer's record cannot be constructed in such a manner so as to permit competing for promotion on a fair and equitable basis; or, that had errors not occurred, the probability of selection for promotion would have been extremely high.  We are not persuaded by her assertions that these factors exist in this case.  Her numerous contentions of administrative delays and misinformation are duly noted.  However, notwithstanding the factors she contends ultimately led to her being in the position she now finds herself, the fact remains that there were no material errors in her record reviewed by the selection board.  Therefore, we find no evidence of an error in this case and are not persuaded by her assertions that she has been the victim of an injustice.  Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to grant 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; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2006-02034 in Executive Session on 18 December 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-02034 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 June 2007, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ CAANGB/A1P, dated 24 July 2007.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1POP, dated 30 July 2007.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 8 August 2007.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 August 2007.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 September 2007.
	Exhibit G   Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 6 December 2007.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 December 2007.