RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02755
		INDEX CODES:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be immediately promoted to the Reserve grade of colonel, with a retroactive date of 2006; or, in the alternative, his record be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) Line and Nonline Colonel Selection Board, excluding both his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) and those of all candidates, and he be allowed to submit a personal letter to the board.

By amendment, in the alternative, his FY06 PRF be amended to include the matters subsequently added during the correction of records process, he be assigned a new ranking, and he be afforded candidacy before a new SSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was precluded from submitting a personal letter to the FY06 SSB concerning the matters he believed were important to his case.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded statement, documentation pertaining to a previous correction of his records and an SSB, and a copy of his FY06 PRF.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate he was appointed as a first lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, Judge Advocate General Department Reserve (JAGDR), on 19 Aug 85, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 3 Oct 85.  He was honorably discharged from all appointments on 1 Oct 93 under the provisions of AFR 36-12 (Voluntary Resignation – Miscellaneous Reasons).  He was credited with 7 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active total active service.

On 2 Oct 93, he was appointed as a captain, Iowa Air National Guard (ANG).  By Special Order AFA-02, dated 1 Oct 96, he was assigned to an Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) tour.

On 13 Dec 97, the applicant separated from the Iowa ANG and was transferred to the Air Force Reserve (ARPC/JA).  

By Reserve Order XXXXXXXXXX, dated 3 Feb 06, the applicant was relieved from his current assignment, assigned to the Retired Reserve, and his name was placed on the Reserve Retired List, effective 9 Jul 06, in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 1996 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	31 Jul 96	Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
	31 Jul 97	Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
	13 Dec 98	Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
	13 Dec 00	Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
	13 Jun 03	Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
	14 Mar 04	Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
  #	14 Mar 05	Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
	14 Mar 06	Meets Standards (Non-EAD)

# Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the FY06 Line and Nonline Colonel Selection Board.

On 17 Jan 07, the Board considered the applicant’s request that his record be corrected to reflect that a Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM (4OLC)) was a matter of record when his record was considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by an SSB for the FY06 Line and Nonline Colonel Selection Board.  The Board recommended his request be approved and that his record, to include the MSM (4OLC), be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB for the FY06 Line and Nonline Colonel Selection Board, which was accepted by the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency on 8 Mar 07.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial indicating that after the FY06 board had adjourned, it was discovered the applicant had written a letter to the board, but it was not placed in his selection folder.  He was immediately granted an SSB, based on his missing letter.  In his notification of the SSB, he was told he could write a new letter to the SSB and was provided guidelines on how to write the letter.  Writing a letter to an SSB is addressed in the governing instruction.  A letter to an SSB is only refused when it addresses events and information that occurred after the original board, or if the letter is written to contradict the governing instruction.  Prior to the convening of the board, the applicant's record and OSB were corrected to clarify his duty assignment history, his academic education, and the receipt of the MSM 40LC.

According to ARPC/DPB, the foundation of the applicant's case appears to be that he feels he needs to explain to the SSB that he was the candidate from among all the records, that his PRF was inaccurate but his record had been corrected, and that his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) should reflect the award of an MSM (40LC).  The final letter he submitted addressed the span of his position as a military judge.  He addressed his academic education, the reasons behind his second Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), his AGR assignment, and Officer Performance Report (OPR) that covered two years rather than one year. 

ARPC/DPB states that that at no time did the applicant challenge the veracity of the PRF through official channels.  Prior to his retirement, he could have appealed the PRF through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), or now that he is retired, he could appeal the PRF directly to the Board.  Further, contrary to the applicant’s belief, the PRF is not the single-most important and controlling document in a candidate’s file; it is only one piece of the “whole person” concept, and is simply a summary of the officer’s career with a promotion recommendation from the senior rater to the promotion board.

In ARPC/DPD’s view, there has been no unfair treatment of the officer.  He received the same advice, guidance, and instruction about preparing a letter to a promotion board as every other officer.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicates the advisory opinion misstates his position, ignores regulatory authority, and misapprehends the reality of the Air Force promotion system.  The essence of his appeal is that he was wrongly denied the opportunity to send a written communication to the SSB so that he could bring attention to any matter that he considered important to his case in accordance with the governing instruction.  In this instance, several corrections were made to his records after his original selection board.  However, those corrections were not accurately reflected in his PRF.  Hence, he deemed it of vital importance to comment on the differences between the corrected record and his PRF in a letter to the SSB.  However, a civilian technician again prevented him from doing so.  Despite the editorial nature of the advisory opinion and the obvious personal and biased interest of the civilian technician, he was and is entitled to point out inconsistencies and errors between the corrected records and the outdated PRF.  Therefore, he requests that the Board grant the relief sought in his appeal or, in the alternative, the Board amend the PRF to include the matters subsequently added during the correction of records process, he be assigned a new ranking, and that he be afforded candidacy before a new SSB.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  No evidence has been presented which shows to our satisfaction the applicant was denied an opportunity to write a letter to the SSB that met the provisions of the governing instruction.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence he was not afforded full and fair consideration by a duly constituted SSB, or that he was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  Notwithstanding this decision, if the applicant were to provide a copy of a reaccomplished PRF that has the support of the senior rater and board president, we would be inclined to reconsider his request for an SSB, with inclusion of that PRF.

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-2007-02755 in Executive Session on 26 Mar 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 24 Sep 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Oct 07, w/atchs.