AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD  OF PROCEEDINGS 

I N  THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00919 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  Y E S  

DE(:  41998: 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

1.  His nonselection for promotion to  the grade of  colonel, by 
the Calendar Year 1994 (CY94) promotion board, be set aside. 
2.  His  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF) ,  AF  Form  709, 
reviewed  by  the  CY94  colonel  promotion  board,  be  upgraded  to 
reflect a "Definitely Promotell recommendation. 

His record be corrected to show he was promoted to the grade 

3 .  
of colonel as if selected by the CY94 Central Colonel Board. 
4.  His records be  corrected to reflect continuous active duty, 
since retirement, to  include restoration of  all pay, benefits, 
and any other entitlements, to include carryover of  the maximum 
amount of leave for the period he was not on active duty. 
5.  In the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations, he 
requests  that  the  AFBCMR  direct  his  record  be  corrected  to 
'reflect selection for promotion  to the grade of  colonel by  the 
CY94 promotion board. 

ould hold as commander of an 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
At  the time of  his consideration for promotion to the grade of 
colonel, he was in one of the most promotable jobs a lieutenant 
efueling squadron at 
His home wing was 
is unit was  I1out of 
even more atypical. 
When  the  refueling  assets  were  transferred  to  Air  Mobility 
Command  (AMC) ,  he  found  himself  in  a  new  command.  He  was 
physically separated from his operations group commander and wing 
commander and even more geographically separated from the senior 
rater  who  ultimately  determined  his  (applicant's) promotion 
recommendation.  Applicant states that he found it was impossible 
for  him  to  compete  on  a  fair  and  equitable  basis  with  his 
contemporaries. 

Applicantis complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Reserve of the 
Air Force on 27 March  1973  and ordered to extended active duty. 
He was subsequently appointed a first lieutenant in the Regular 
Air Force on 24  November 1 9 7 6 .  
Applicant  was  considered  and  nonselected  for  promotion  to  the 
grade of colonel by the CY94A  (11 Ju1 9 4 )   Central Colonel Board 
In-The-Primary Zone (IPZ) . 
Applicant I  s  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile,  since 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

28  Feb 90 
28  Feb 9 1  
28  Feb 92 
28  Feb 93 
28  Feb 94 

# 

OVERALL  EVALUATION 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

#  Top report at time of nonselection to the grade of colonel 

by the CY94A Central Colonel Board. 

On 6 September 1994,  applicant requested voluntary retirement to 
be effective 1 January 1 9 9 5 .  
Applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 December 1994  and 
honorably retired effective 1 January  1995  under the provisions 
of  AFI  3 6 - 3 2 0 3   (Voluntary  Retirement-Sufficient  Service  For 
Retirement)  in the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel.  He  served  22 
years and 3  days of active service for retirement. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Evaluation Board  Computer Support  and Analysis Manager, HQ 
AFPC/DPPPEB,  states  that  although  the  applicant  alleges  his 
senior rater was  not  familiar with  his  performance, AFR  36-10 
allows  a  senior  rater  to  use  information  from  other  reliable 
sources when accomplishing a PRF.  Additionally, during the CY94 
promotion cycle, IITop Promotell statements were neither encouraged 
He  provides  no  supporting 
nor  prohibited  by  regulation. 
documentation  from  his  senior  rater  or  Management  Level 
Evaluation Board  (MLEB) President indicating they would  upgrade 
his  promotion  recommendation as  a  result  of  his  appeal.  The 
original  PRF  should  stand  since  there  is  no  evidence  the 

- 

2 

. 

applicant received anything but  fair and equitable treatment  in 
the PRF process. 
A complete copy of this evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief  of  Operations,  Selection  Board  secretariat,  HQ 
AFPC/DPPB,  reviewed  the  application  and  addresses  applicant's 
contentions  regarding  IfDefective Selection Boards.!'  AFPC/DPPB 
does not  agree with  applicant's contentions that  his promotion 
board was-in violation of Sections 616 and 617, Title 10 U.S.C. 
He cites the Roane court decision concerning alleged violations 
and AFPC/DPPB defers the response to AFPC/JA. 
A complete copy of this evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, states that the 
advisories  from HQ AFPC/DPPPEB and HQ APRC/DPPB  address all of 
the applicant's allegations and supporting documentation.  This 
office  has  analyzed  the  applicant's  record  and  attached  a 
summary. 
They  believe  the  record  speaks  for  itself. 
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  regarding 
applicant's request for direct promotion to the grade of colonel. 
Other  than  his  own  opinions,  the  applicant  has  provided  no 
substantiation to  his  allegations.  They  recommend  applicant's 
requests be denied. 
A complete copy of this evaluation, with attachment, is attached 
at Exhibit E. 
The  Superintendent,  Retirements  and  Separation  Division,  HQ 
AFPC/DPPR, reviewed the application with regard to the effect of 
retirement  issues  if  promoted  to  colonel.  AFPC/DPPR  makes  no 
recommendation in applicant's case. 
A complete copy of this evaluation, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit F. 
The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, reviewed the application 
and  states  that  it  is  AFPC/JAIs  opinion  that  the  application 
should  be  denied.  Applicant  has  failed  to  present  relevant 
evidence of any error or injustice warranting relief. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit G. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  provided  a 
response, with attachments, which is attached at Exhibit I. 

3 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrat-e  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Applicant's  numerous  contentions  concerning  the  statutory 
compliance  of  the  central  selection  boards,  the  promotion 
recommendation appeal  process  and  the  1ega.lity of  the  special 
selection board  (SSB) process, are duly noted.  However, after a 
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  his  nonselection  for 
promotion to the grade of colonel, by the CY94 promotion board, 
should  be  set  aside;  that  his  promotion  recommendation  form 
(PRF) ,  reviewed by the CY94 colonel promotion board, be upgraded 
to  a  I1Definitely Promote1I recommendation; that  his  records be 
corrected to reflect continuous active duty since his separation; 
or, that he receive a direct promotion to the grade of colonel, 
as if promoted by the CY94 colonel promotion board with back pay 
and benefits.  We do not  find applicant's assertions, in and by 
themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale 
provided  by  the  Air  Force. 
We  therefore  agree  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the  rationale 
expressed  as the basis  for our decision that  the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error 
or  an  injustice.  Therefore, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 
4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance, with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have 
materially  added to that understanding.  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  probable  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 in 
Executive Session on 14 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 .  

- 

4 

Mr. Thomas S .   Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member 
Ms. Martha Maust, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit ... C . 
Exhibit D . 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F . 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 

DD Form 149,  dated 20 Mar 97,  w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 29 Apr 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 8 May 9 7 .  
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 20 May 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPR, dated 15 Jul 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 28 Aug 97. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Sep 97. 
Applicant's Letter, dated 8  Dec 97,  w/atchs. 

Panel Chair 

5