RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-00915

						COUNSEL:  

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Central Selection Board P0414C and P0415C results be corrected to promote him to the rank of Major (O-4).
2.  His Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) qualification be restored.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His promotion denial is in conflict with the provisions of 10 USC Sections 661-668 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2135, Joint Officer Management, which state those within the Standard Joint Duty Assignment (S-JDA) positions shall be promoted at or above their respective service rate.

Request for correction is based upon his record of performance, assignment vectoring by the Directorate of Force Development Teams, and his demonstrated ability to serve within the next highest grade while assigned to an S-JDA position, an O-4 billet, at United States Pacific Command. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Sep 05, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

The applicant was considered and non-selected for promotion to Major by the Calendar Year (CY) 2014 Line of the Air Force (LAF) Major Central Selection Board (P0414C) and the CY 2015 LAF Major Central Selection Board (P0415C).

On 31 Jul 16, the applicant was involuntarily separated, furnished an Honorable discharge, and credited with 10 years, 10 months, and 1 day of active service.

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits E and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/PB recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

The applicant contends his non-selection for promotion may be in conflict with Title 10 promotion policy objectives for joint officers. 

There are two promotion objectives for joint officers contained in Title 10 USC Section 662:

	The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the qualifications of officers assigned to joint duty assignment are such that –
(1)	Officers who are serving on, or have served on, the Joint Staff are expected, as a group, to be promoted to the next higher grade at a rate not less than the rate for officers of the same armed force in the same grade and competitive category who are serving on, or have served on, the headquarters staff of their armed force; and 
(2)	Officers in the grade of Major (or in the case of the Navy, Lieutenant Commander) or above who have been designated as a joint qualified officer are expected, as a group, to be promoted to the next higher grade at a rate not less than the rate for all officers of the same armed force in the same grade and competitive category.

The applicant was not assigned to the Joint Staff (1st objective) or designated as a joint qualified officer (2nd objective), thus the two objectives did not pertain to him at any point prior to, or during, the promotion board.

The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF), through her Memorandum of Instructions, did highlight these objectives to the Major’s Central Selection Board.
  
A complete copy of the AFPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DP3DW states that in accordance with Air Force Instruction, 36-2301, Developmental Education, Section B, Officer Developmental Education, paragraph 6, Eligibility and Prerequisites, Table 1, members are only eligible for Intermediate Developmental Education in the rank of Major Select through Lieutenant Colonel.  As the applicant is a Captain, he is not eligible.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3DW evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The basis of his request for relief is his record of performance, assignment vectoring by the Directorate of Force Development Teams, and demonstrated ability to successfully serve within the next highest grade.  He is not filing the appeal as a Joint Qualified Officer, but as a Joint Officer who successfully served while in an S-JDA position.  Additionally, the guidance provided by 10 USC Chapter 38, Sections 661 and 665, as well as AFI 36-2135, support his position.

Further, SecAF guidance, Memorandum of Instruction for Management Level Reviews, dated 18 Mar 16, stated, “During a recent review of the entire promotion process, we identified a gap where Senior Raters and the membership of Management Level Reviews (MLRs) may not have this information when reviewing records and making decisions on officer promotion recommendations for the CSB.”  This gap adversely affected who received Senior Rater “Definitely Promote” vs “Promote” status and MLR stratification.

Lastly, the DP3DW advisory confirms his position regarding vectoring and his joint officer development path.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

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, to include the information provided in his rebuttal, 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 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-2016-00915 in Executive Session on 11 Jul 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00915 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Feb 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, Applicant Additional Input, dated
23 Jun 16, w/atchs.
Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant Additional Input, dated
28 Jun 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/PB, dated 19 Jul 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3DW, dated 25 Oct 16.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant Additional Input, dated
	21 Nov 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant Rebuttal, dated 10 Apr 17,
w/atchs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.