RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03466 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 134.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Any data on his officer selection brief (OSB) or other documents used in promotion boards that indicates or implies he had applied for and/or been approved for retirement be removed. He be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY07A (9 Apr 07) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes verbal mention of or displaying data during promotion boards that indicates whether a member has applied for retirement is unjust. Also verbal mention of an application for or an approved retirement should not be allowed during promotion boards. He believes that during his Biomedical Science Corps (BSC) Colonel Promotion Board held in Apr 07, there was a potential for unfair bias. He believes that officers who had applied for retirement may have been judged as not exhibiting as much loyalty to the Air Force and military service as those who had not applied for retirement. Therefore, those officers who had applied for retirement were scored lower by promotion board members than those who had not applied for retirement, thereby ultimately resulting in his non-selection. In support of his request, the applicant provided statements and a copy of his promotion recommendation form (PRF) from the 2007 (BSC) Colonel Promotion Board showing receipt of a Definitely Promote (DP) rating. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Jul 86 and was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel on 1 Apr 02. The applicant applied for voluntary retirement and had an approved date of separation of 3 Jul 07. The applicant met and was non-selected below-the-zone (BPZ) by the CY07A Colonel Central Selection Board held on 9 Apr 07. Other relevant facts are contained in the AFPC/DPSOO opinion at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. The applicant applied for voluntary retirement and had an approved date of separation (DOS) of 31 Jul 07. Because the DOS was approved prior to the board convening date, it was updated on his selection brief. Board members are not instructed, nor is there a policy that promotions should be considered only for those remaining in the service. The fact that officers are selected every board with a DOS reflected on their OSF is proof that eligible officers are looked at without prejudice or partiality. Board members take an oath to act in the best interest of the Air Force and are charged with using the whole-person concept when assessing each officer’s record. While it is true that the DOS is part of the OSB, there is no set “criteria” for promotion. Eligible officers meeting CSBs are given officer promotion briefs (OPBs) prior to the board. The OPB contains the same data that will appear on the OSB at the central board. Furthermore, the instructions attached to the OPB explain each data element and what will be reflected in those areas. The instructions state “An established DOS and DOS reasons are displayed on the OSB if approved prior to the board convening date.” Therefore, the applicant was aware that his retirement would be displayed for the board to take into consideration when reviewing his record for promotion. Eligible officers meeting a board have the option to submit a letter to the board president addressing any matter of record concerning themselves that they believe is important to their consideration for promotion. As such, the applicant could have written a letter to the board members of his intent to withdraw his retirement if selected for promotion to colonel. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant restates his contention that there may have been unfair bias because his application for retirement was displayed on his OSB and could have resulted in board members scoring his records lower than those who had not applied for retirement. He contends that the statement made by AFPC/DPSOO regarding officer selections is false. Having officers selected for promotion with a DOS on their OSB is not proof that there is no bias against those with a DOS on the OSB. It is likely that few officers are selected for promotion with a DOS reflected on their OSB. For example, if 50 percent of those eligible are selected for promotion but only 10 percent of those with a DOS on their OSB are selected, then this would indicate that there could be an unfair bias against officers with the DOS on their OSB even though officers with an established DOS were selected. The applicant states that in his BSC Colonel Board, he knows of no other officers who had applied for retirement and had an established DOS on their OSB who were selected for promotion. He states he did not imply that there was a set “criteria” for promotion for those with a DOS on their OSB. He did think about writing a letter to the board after he received the Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation. He states he sought the advice of senior officers on this matter, including the general officer who signed the promotion recommendation form. The advice was that writing a letter to the board would draw unneeded attention to the DOS on his OSB which may have gone unnoticed if a letter to the board had not been written. He states that it seems unjust to him that he would even need to think about writing a letter to the board to explain a DOS on his OSB or state he would apply to withdraw his retirement if selected for promotion. The applicant states that the DPSOO recommendation in his case is unfounded in that DPSOO has not provided any evidence that there is no injustice or bias against officers who have a DOS on their OSB, and they do not explain why in his case, with a DP recommendation, he was non-selected, while those that did not have a DP recommendation and had not applied for retirement were selected for promotion. The applicant’s complete submission 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's complete submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion of promotion board bias towards those officers with established dates of separation, in and by itself, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. He has not provided any hard evidence to support his contentions. 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 decision that he has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either 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- 2007-03466 in Executive Session on 20 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Oct 08. Exhibit B. Officer Selection Record. Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO Memorandum, dated 3 Dec 07. Exhibit D. SAF/MRBR Letter, w/atch, dated 4 Jan 08. Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 22 Jan 08.