RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC 2007-02322
INDEX CODE:  131.00
								COUNSEL: NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col) (O-5) with an effective date of 9 September 2001.  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air National Guard (ANG) chain of command, between 29 August 2001 and 28 August 2005, made a deliberate and cognitive decision to limit her advancement by repeatedly denying her the opportunity to be promoted to the rank of Lt Col.  Leadership consistently provided vague, incorrect, and conflicting information about her non-selection for promotion, position number, authorized grade of her position, and the history of her authorized position.  Their actions denied her fair and equitable consideration for promotion to the rank of Lt Col, to include a position vacancy promotion and mandatory promotion following her selection by the Fiscal Year 2004 (FY04) Promotion Board in accordance with the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA).  She first became eligible for promotion to Lt Col under position vacancy criterion, having met time-in-grade, professional military education, and position vacancy requirements; however, was not promoted.  She was selected for promotion by the FY04 ROPMA Promotion Board; however, her leadership told her she was assigned to an authorized major position; therefore, she would have to sign a waiver of promotion.  Her effective date of promotion was 14 months away; therefore, she did not complete or sign the form.  Records document she was assigned to position number 0002339 from 29 August 2001 through at least 24 January 2005.  Based on the copy of the position description supporting position 0002339, provided to her on 2 February 2004, the authorized grade for this position was Lt Col.  Shortly after she presented evidence to the ANG/XO leadership that her current position was, in fact, authorized as Lt Col vice major, she was notified that her four-year active duty Statutory Tour with the Air National Guard Readiness Center was not extended in spite of having been advised by her immediate supervisor in January 2004 that she would be extended.  

During the entire time, she was repeatedly denied an opportunity to be promoted to the rank of Lt Col; however, during the same period of time, ANG/XO used position vacancy criterion to promote other majors in the directorate with less time-in-grade than her, later dates of assignment than hers, and with minimum time-in-grade.  Based on her perceptions, ANG/XO leadership, through NGB/CF, proactively and successfully pursued available Lt Col positions and controlled grades for these other officers.

On 12 April 2007, she discovered that the Current Grade Effective Date of Rank Effective Date ((CG DOR EFF DATE) on her current active duty statutory tour orders was in error by four years.  Her CG DOR EFF DATE is 9 September 1997; however, it was listed as 29 August 2001 on her assignment orders.  Efforts to correct this error were successful; however, it leads her to question whether or not the incorrect CG DOR EFF DATE may have impacted her opportunities for promotion.  

She would like the Board to redress this situation and render a final decision that will allow for her immediate promotion to the rank of Lt Col, with an effective date of 9 September 2001, the date she was first eligible for promotion and assigned to an authorized Lt Col position.  This outcome will allow her to pursue, with her remaining time-in-service, career opportunities that were previously and unjustly unavailable to her.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, and copies of position descriptions, electronic communications, and numerous military personnel records.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the ANG on an active duty statutory tour in the grade of major with a date of rank of 9 September 1997.  

She was selected for promotion to the grade of Lt Col by the FY04 ANG Line and Nonline Lt Col Promotion Selection Board with a projected effective date of 9 September 2004.  However, ANG/OM indicates the applicant was not able to be promoted to the grade of Lt Col due to the controlled grade for her position was that of major. 

The following is a resume of the applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) ratings commencing with her report closing 5 July 1996:  

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL RATING

	 5 Jul 96					Meets Standards (MS)
	 5 Jul 97						MS
	 5 Jul 98						MS
 5 Jul 99						MS
	16 Jun 00					Education/Training Report
	10 Jul 01						MS
28 Aug 01						MS
	10 Jul 02						MS
	28 Aug 03						MS
	28 Aug 04						MS
	21 Feb 05						MS
	28 Aug 05						MS
	 4 May 06						MS
	 9 May 07						MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF recommends denial of the applicant’s immediate promotion to Lt Col with an effective date of 9 September 2001.  A1POF states the applicant began a four-year active duty statutory tour with the ANG as an Air Operations Staff Officer.  While assigned to this position, she anticipated that having met all requirements to be promoted to Lt Col, she would be promoted.  The applicant then inquired and was advised by AMC/RE that she was assigned to an authorized major position.  She was also advised that a position vacancy promotion was not an option because there were no vacant Lt Col positions or controlled grades to support a position vacancy promotion to Lt Col.  On 3 September 2002, she was reassigned from AMC to ANG Directorate of Operations as a C-130J Requirements Officer in Arlington, VA.  The authorized grade for this position was Lt Col; however, the controlled grade was that of major.  Again she anticipated being promoted based on conversations with the ANG/XO leadership during the negotiations of the move.  In July 2003, with new ANG/XO leadership, she was notified she had been selected for promotion by the FY04 2004 ROPMA Promotion Board.  Her projected date of rank for the promotion was 9 September 2004.  After inquiring on the promotion, the applicant was advised that she was assigned to a grade-authorized major position and that position vacancy promotion was not an option because there were no vacant Lt Col position “offsets,” or controlled grades to support her position vacancy.  Regarding her ROPMA promotion, she was instructed to complete the AF IMT 3988, Application for Voluntary Delay, Acceptance, or Declination of Promotion, which she did not complete or sign.  Upon completion of her tour, she was not extended, and returned to her ANG unit in California.  On 10 May 2006, the applicant began a second active duty tour with the National Guard Bureau, as a Plans Officer.  The authorized grade is a captain/major.  Recently, she discovered the “Controlled Grade Date of Rank Effective Date” was incorrect.  Efforts to correct this were successful; however, the applicant is led to believe that his may have impacted her opportunities for promotion.  

A1POF states the position the applicant applied for was advertised for a promotable captain or major.  Since that date, she has not been selected for positions requiring the grade of Lt Col.  ANG officers selected for promotion to Lt Col who are in a full-time Air Guard Reserve/Statutory Tour position, and not assigned to a valid Lt Col billet at the time of promotion have two options.  The member can accept a voluntary delay of the mandatory promotion or revert to a traditional Guard status to accept the promotion.  According to ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, or National Guard Regulation 36-4, Federal Recognition of Promotion in the Air National Guard of the United States and as a Reserve of the Air Force below the Grade of General Officer, the functional director or designated representative must approve a promotion request prior to it being submitted to ANG/OM for processing.  ANG/OM has not received any requests for promotion from the applicant’s director as required for ANG/OM to initiate a unit vacancy promotion or ROPMA promotion.  

The NGB/A1POF evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that having been failed by the National Guard System, she was surprised to learn, first, that upon receiving the Air Force advisory opinion, the AFBCMR process directed it to the very same National Guard office that played a major role in the offending history, and then asked them for input and a recommendation on her specific case.  Throughout the entire chronology of events, many of the political decisions affecting her case were issued through this same office.  Second, the selection of the individual chosen and accepted as the subject matter expert (SME) is extremely unfortunate and has served only to multiply the injustice exponentially, as this particular SME is far from unbiased.  This SME has been extremely close to this situation and has been a significant participant in all the decisions and cultural politics surrounding this case for the entire length of the time referenced in the package.  Additionally, this SME is well known to be both personally and emotionally attached to this case, and should have immediately recused herself from any involvement with it.  The fact that this particular National Guard office and this specific individual have officially commented at all presents, at a minimum, a conflict of interest and is completely inappropriate.  Additionally, it is a gross violation of the Board process and comprises all trust and respect for its integrity.  

Her leadership made a considerable effort to have her believe they were trying to promote her, but the reality of their actions tell a different story.  Despite their claims, they made no inquiries or requests to support her promotion, they intentionally diluted her OPRs, and they consistently gave inaccurate information regarding the real authorization of her position.  Not only were they making absolutely no effort to promote her, to the contrary, they were actively and intentionally seeking to minimize her competitiveness through deliberate and questionable means, with neither cause nor merit.

While putting together her appeal package for submission to the Board, she discovered her initial position was, in fact, an authorized Lt Col position all along.  However, she had been told that her position was only a major authorization.  The fact that her leadership consistently withheld a Lt Col controlled grade to put against her position, all the while, telling her they were doing everything possible to get her promoted, is a huge part of the injustice.  Her leadership found no difficulty finding the required controlled grades to promote many male officers who arrived later and were far junior to her.  Her leadership even had Lt Col controlled grades placed against the positions of junior male officers in her own division before they were minimally eligible for unit vacancy promotion to Lt Col.  Her leadership also transferred available Lt Col controlled grades from her division to other divisions to promote other junior male officers, all the while telling her that, unfortunately, these could not help her because her position was only authorized as a major.  She has provided evidence that her position was an authorized Lt Col position.  Her leadership eventually admitted they knew this all along.

The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the available evidence, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note the applicant’s assertion that her leadership actively and intentionally sought to minimize her competitiveness through deliberate and questionable means to prevent her promotion to the grade of Lt Col; however, she has not provided evidence to support her contentions.  The applicant was assigned to a position at AMC that while it was authorized as a Lt Col position, it was only funded for occupancy by the grade of major.  According to ANG/OM, the position she occupied was transferred along with the applicant’s assignment when she was transferred to ANG Directorate of Operations.  As for her current position, we note the applicant willingly accepted her current active duty position which has an authorized grade of major.  We note the applicant’s assertion that the SME is biased and serves only to multiply the injustice against her but; again, she provides no corroborated evidence to support this contention.  The applicant’s also asserts that controlled grades were found for far junior male officers that arrived to her division after she did; however, the applicant has not provided evidence such as an Equal Opportunity or Inspector General assessment to substantiate her concerns.  The evidence of record indicates her leadership followed established procedures and policies.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we concur with  the comments provided by the office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision in this case.  In view of the above, we have no basis on which to favorably consider the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 29 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC 2007-02322 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 03, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Mar 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 25 Apr 03.