RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02439
								INDEX CODE:  131.09
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of colonel as if he had been promoted by the Calendar Year 2007A (CY04A) (P0604A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an Armed Forces Information Service Instruction error, the P0604A Colonel Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) did not contain a “Definitely Promote” (DP) or stratification statements.

Since 1999, he has been #1, or in the top 10%, against a 46% selection rate.  Even without those PRF statements, board members should have seen he deserved to be promoted to colonel based on his PRFs since 1999.  A Department of Defense (DoD) Senior Executive Staff (SES) Publisher acknowledged this problem in a letter to the CY05A Colonel CSB.  

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a personal statement, a July 2004 e-mail pertaining to his Officer Preselection Brief for the CY04A Colonel CSB, PRFs for the P0602B, P0603B, and P0604A Colonel CSBs, an AF IMT 3538, Retention Recommendation, a 10 June 2005 letter from a DoD SES recommending his immediate promotion, and an August-September e-mail trail with SAF/MRBR concerning this application.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant has four non-selections to the grade of colonel by the CY04A, CY05A, CY06A, and CY07A Colonel CSBs.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial since the application is without merit and no error or injustice occurred.  The applicant filed two appeals with the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) and both were returned for clarification and the supporting documentation required by Air Force Instructions (AFI) 36-2406 and AFI 36-2401.  The applicant did not respond to the opportunity to provide the required documentation and clarification as pertains to his ERAB appeals and this application.

The time to question a PRF is when the PRF is presented to the officer, and the officer has a 30-day window in which to address the content of the PRF with the senior rater.  Rater stratifications are personal opinions of where the ratee ranks within the rater’s small unit – not necessarily across the entire Air Force.  The total record of performance is reviewed by a microcosm of officers from across the Air Force who rank the officer against others from across the entire Air Force, and while this rater may be impressed with his performance, it may not stack-up when compared to other lieutenant colonels in the Air Force.  The PRF content alone does not make a record promotable; rather, it is an overview of the officer’s career – the entire record of performance to include decorations and the Officer Selection Brief.  

The AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO concurs with the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation and recommends denial of the applicant’s request for direct promotion and/or Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration.

The results of the CSBs the applicant met were based on a complete review of his entire record, assessing the 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 vested with discretionary authority to make such decisions.  Furthermore, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records but did not get promoted.  Additionally, both Congress and DoD have made clear their intent that errors ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved through the use of SSBs.  When many good officers are competing for a limited number of promotions, it is extremely competitive.  Without access to all the competing records and a review of their content, they believe sending approved cases to SSBs for remedy is the fairest 
and best practice.  However, in this case, direct promotion or SSB consideration would be inappropriate. 
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisories do not specifically address the errors in the P0604A CSB process.  The Air University commander said he was next in line for his Below the Promotion Zone “DP”, OSD/PA sent out the wrong guidance for PRF preparation, the USAF guidance was not supported, and he never met the senior rater who wrote the PRF.  He immediately advised AFPC of the errors, and a P0604A PRF was re-submitted but inadvertently used for his CY06A Colonel CSB.  A re-review of his 1999-2007 PRFs will reveal a lieutenant colonel “second to none.”

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2007-02439 in Executive Session on 1 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Mar 07 Officer Selection Record.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 8 Feb 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 28 Feb 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 08.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Mar 08, w/atchs.