RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03089 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) as lieutenant colonel (O-5) be changed from 13 December 2013 to 2 December 2012. He receive any back pay and benefits associated with the correction of his DOR change reflecting 2 December 2012. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DOR to O-5 should reflect 2 December 2012, the date his commander submitted the approval letter. He was originally eligible for promotion in December 2012, but through no fault of his own, his promotion paperwork was not completely submitted until December 2013. It should not have taken from 2 December 2012 to 13 December 2013 to process his promotion. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (0-5). On 24 September 2008, the applicant was promoted to the grade of Major (O-4). On 2 December 2012, the applicant’s commander recommended him for promotion to the rank O-5. On 3 March 2013, a Federal Recognition Examining Board (FREB) convened to consider the applicant’s qualifications for federal recognition as a lieutenant colonel. The board found the applicant to be qualified for promotion and recommended he be granted federal recognition. On 8 January 2014, by order of the Governor, the applicant was granted promotion to the grade of O-5, effective approval of Federal Recognition. On 15 July 2014, by order of the Secretary of the Air Force and Direction of the President, the applicant was extended Federal recognition and promoted Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF) to the grade of O-5, effective 13 December 2013. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PO recommends denial. In accordance with the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA), ANG officers are mandated by law to be considered for promotion prior to the officer obtaining seven years’ time in grade (TIG). However, at the request of The Adjutant General (TAG), ANG officers can be recommended for Position Vacancy (PV) promotion in advance of their projected mandatory ROPMA date if the officer meets all eligibility requirements outlined in Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-2504, Federal Recognition of Promotion in the Air National Guard (ANG) and as a Reserve of the Air Force Below the Grade of General Officer, and is found to be fully qualified for promotion by a Federal Recognition Examining Board (FREB). The aforementioned ANGI also specifies that PV promotions must be reserved for a very limited number of truly outstanding officers who have demonstrated potential for positions of increased responsibility. Officers will only be placed on a PV promotion list after NGB/A1PO has received a promotion request and a review of the officer’s promotion record shows the officer meets all the outlined eligibility requirements. In this case, NGB/A1PO received the applicant’s promotion request on 8 January 2014 containing a FREB dated 13 December 2013. His promotion record was reviewed by NGB/A1PO and he was placed on the ANG February 2014 PV promotion list with a DOR of 13 December 2013, as identified on the FREB. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PO evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant does not dispute the actions which occurred at NGB/A1PO but rather the processing of his promotion before it reached NGB/A1PO. It should not have taken over one year to submit his paperwork for processing. He argues that his first FREB did not occur until March 2013 based on his paperwork not being processed in a timely manner. These administrative errors have impacted his future eligibility for promotion to colonel by one year. His true DOR should be closer to December 2012/January 2013. He would have had enough time in service in December 2015/January 2016, if selected for a command billet. Based on normal timely processing he would have been promoted in July 2014 rather than on 14 July 2015, which is his actual promotion date. There is a significant differential in pay from July 2014 to 14 July 2015, anywhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 to $4,000. He further states that he has demonstrated through documentation that his promotion submittal was administratively mismanaged and should have been submitted more quickly. Under normal conditions, NGB/A1PO should have received his initial promotion package in January 2013. As such, his DOR should be changed and adjusted closer to when his promotion was submitted to his Force Support Squadron (FSS). The 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we note the applicant’s contentions and his commander’s memorandum dated 2 December 2012 recommending promotion through the vacancy promotion process, we do not believe that a commander’s recommendation creates an automatic entitlement to promotion or that there was an error or injustice in the fact that the promotion processing exceeded the applicant’s timely expectation. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate he suffered either and error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03089 in Executive Session on 15 October 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 July 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PO, dated 16 March 2015. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 July 2015. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 August 2015, w/atchs.