RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00260
		INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 AUGUST 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration with a corrected AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) which met the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The promotion recommendation and narrative section of his PRF were produced by a biased review panel held at his unit of assignment in which he and other officers did not have a fair and equal representation.  This not only led to the perception of a mini-board at the senior rater level, but additionally, most of the colonels on the review group were not in his chain-of-command.  In February 2002, he submitted an Inspector General (IG) complaint against the commander regarding the process he used to determine promotion recommendations.  The IG stated that the manner in which the group carried out its assigned review was in accordance with the governing AFI and there was insufficient information for further investigation.  The PRF is the most important element in an officer’s selection record when meeting a promotion board.  He firmly believes his career progression was halted by a biased DP-award process.  

In support of his request applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board Results with associated correspondence and copies of correspondence from the Senior Official Inquiries Inspector General’s Office.  The applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date as 28 May 1986.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, with a date of rank of 1 January 1998.  

The applicant’s OSB contains AF Forms 707B, Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) beginning with the rating period 18 June 1998 and ending on 8 April 2004 with overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”  The applicant currently has an established date of separation (DOS) of 31 May 2006.

The applicant has four nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5 Nov 01) (P0501B); CY02B (12 Nov 02) (P0502B); CY03A (8 Jul 03) (P0503A); and CY04B (12 Jul 04) (P0504A) lieutenant colonel CSBs.  Applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the applicant containing an allegation that his commander wrongfully violated AFI 36-2401, para 8.1.4.1.4, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, by holding an improper promotion screening board to determine Definitely Promote (DP) Recommendation allocations for the CY 2001B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.  A complaint analysis was conducted by an investigating officer (IO) appointed by the Office of the Inspector General, Senior Official Inquiries.  In a report approved by the Inspector General on 25 March 2002, the IO concluded that the applicant’s allegation did not warrant further investigation.  The IO did not find prima facie evidence that the commander wrongfully violated AFI 36-2401, by holding an improper promotion screening board to determine DP recommendation allocations for the CY2001B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion board and that, as the senior rater, the commander alone made that determination.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that the Office of the Inspector General, Senior Official Inquiries Branch, concluded that the available evidence did not indicate any wrongdoing or misconduct.  Therefore, DPPPE states there is no basis for SSB consideration.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that the advisory does not explain why the PRF process was not in violation of AFI 36-2406.  He firmly believes that officers who had direct representation by the group of colonels at Maxwell AFB had an advantage over those officers without representation.  The applicant believes that the AFPC/DPPPEB statement regarding his subsequent nonselections were an attempt to suggest that his primary non-selection to lieutenant colonel was validated by subsequent promotion boards.  He finds the inclusion of this information not relevant to his appeal.  The applicant’s letter is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/JAA recommends the application be denied.  JAA states the applicant did not provide evidence that his or any other officer’s PRF was scored, rated, ranked, or tallied in violation of AFI 36-2406.  In addition, JAA states the applicant did not meet the burden of providing sufficient evidence of any connection or bias by the group review and its actions and the award of DP promotion recommendations for officers assigned to Maxwell Air Force Base.  The USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees with the JAA evaluation and believes he has shown that supervisors not in his chain-of-command had influence on his PRF.  He provided data and statistics that clearly showed a disparity in the “DP” recommendations awarded.  The applicant’s letter is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note the applicant’s contention that the promotion recommendation and narrative section of his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was written by a biased review panel; however, other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe the contested PRF is technically flawed or the information in the report, as prepared, was based on inappropriate factors or matters other than the applicant’s duty performance.  The applicant’s complaints were investigated by the Air Force Inspector General’s Office and it was determined the allegations did not warrant further investigation.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence that was unavailable during the investigation of his complaint or lead us to believe the approved findings of the Investigation Officer were flawed.  In view of the above, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision to not favorably consider the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application, AFBCMR Docket No. 01-03283, in Executive Session on 19 July 2005 and 12 October 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

					, Panel Chair
					, Member
					, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and 
                SAF/IGS Senior Official Complaint Analysis
                (withdrawn).
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 4 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 22 Jul 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Aug 05.

                                   Panel Chair