DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-01 539 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 

of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

ords of the Department of the Air Force relating t- 
corrected to show that he be considered for promotion to the grade 
ial Review Board (SRB); that his records be evaluated in 

comparison with the records of officers who were and were not selected by the Fiscal Year 1996 
Reserve of the Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Judge Advocate Selection Board; and that the 
recommendation of the SRB be forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military 
Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions be 
completed. 

p p  

Director 

V  Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 98 

01539 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED: 

Y e s  

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be promoted  to the Reserve grade of  lieutenant  colonel as  if 
selected by  the  Fiscal Year  1996  Reserve of  the Air  Force  (FY96 
ResAF) Lieutenant Colonel Judge Advocate Selection board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  FY96  ResAF  board  improperly  applied  promotion  selection 
criteria  by  making  Professi.ona1  Military  Education  (PME)  a 
prerequisite f o r   promotion. 

In  support,  he  provides  a  letter  from  the  Commander,  HQ  Air 
Reserve  Personnel  Center  (ARPC), who  indicates  that  the  FY96 
ResAF board had no maximum quota, had a lower selection rate than 
the  previous  four boards  for  this  grade, and  that  most  of  the 
nonselects for this board had not completed Intermediate Service 
School  (TSS) . 

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibi-t A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant was  considered but  not  selected by  the FY96 ResAF 
board,  which  convened  on  4  March  1995.  On  31  May  1996  he  was 
notified by  HQ ARPC/DP  that, as a result of  his  second deferral 
for promotion, he must  either apply for transfer to the Honorary 
Retired Reserve or be discharged by  18 October 1997. 

The ResAF Lieutenant Colonel Judge Advocate Selection Board  is a 
"fully  qualified"  board. Consequently, there  are  no  limitations 
on  the  number  of  selections that  can be  made  by  the  board---as 
long as those selected are  "fully qualified. I '  
The formal charge 
given to the members of  the selection board panels instructs them 
to  assess  such  factors  as  job  performance,  leadership, 
professional  competence,  participation,  breadth  of  experience, 
j o b   responsibility,  academic  and  professional  education,  and 
specific achievements. The charge also states that the completion 
of PME is not a prerequisite f o r   promotion. 

All  18  of  the  members  selected  by  the  FY96  ResAF  board  for 
promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  in  the  judge  advocate  career 
field  had  completed  the  appropriate  level  of  PME.  Of  the  12 
nonselects, only one had  completed the appropriate level of PME. 
As  a basis  for comparison, the  FY95 board  considered 28 members 
and  selected 25  for promotion.  Of  the  25  selected,  14 had  not 
completed the appropriate level of PME, the FY94 board considered 
48 members and selected 43 for promotion.  Of the 4:3  selected, 17 
did not have the appropriate level cf PME. 

On  7 May  1996, the  Air  Force  Board  for  Correction  of  Military 
Records  (AFBCMR)  considered  the  case  of  Major  W --- ,  whose 
circumstances were identical to the applicant's.  111 Major W---Is 
case, the Commander, HQ ARPC, stated that, due  to significantly 
lower  overall  selection  rates  on  the  FY96  ResAF  board  when 
compared  to  previous  years  and  ar, apparent  correlation  between 
being  determined  "fully  qualified"  for promotion  2nd  completing 
PME, it was possible that members of the FY96 ResAF board may not 
have followed the Secretary's guidance in all cases.  The AFBCMK 
concluded  that  any doubt  should be  resolved  in favor of Major 
W ---  and recommended that his records be considered for promotion 
by a Special Review Board  (SRB) for the FY96 ResAF iioard.  A  copy 
of the Record of Proceedings for Major W---Is case is attached at 
Exhibit C.  In November 1996, the AFBCMR  granted the same relief 
to another applicant whose circumstances were  identical to Major 
W - - - ' S  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Director  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ  ARPC/DP, 
reviewed  this  appeal and  states  that, as  of  this date, none  of 
the panel members have come forward to indicate that PME was used 
as  a  prerequisite  for  selection  or  that  PME  was  used  as 
prerequisite  f o r   selection or  that  there were  any  improprieties 
in the selection process.  Due co the confidentiality surrounding 
the board proceedings, DP is unable to determine specifically why 
the applicant was not  selected f c r   promotion.  The fact that the 
FY96  ResAF  board  selected  at  a  rate  of  24-30%  lower  than  the 
rates for the previous  four boards  to this grade could lead one 
to  "assume1' that the board did place an inordinate weight on the 
completion of  the appropriate level of  PME.  The author advises 
how the records should be corrected if the Board coiicurs with t h e  
applicant s request. 

A  copy  of  the  complete  the  evaluation, with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A  copy  of  the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on 
20 July  1998 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARC CONCLUDES THAT: 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3 .   Suf f icierit  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
war-ranting favorable action on the applicant's request.  As noted 
by  the  HQ  ARPC,  the  ResAF  Lieutenant  Colonel  Judge  Advocate 
Selection Board is a "fully qualified" board. There are no limits 
on the number of  selections to be nade by the board---so long as 
those  selected  are  llfully quali.fied."  The  fact  t.hat  the  FY96 
ResAF board selected at a rate of 24-30% lower than the rates for 
the  previous  four  boards  for  this  grade  could  lead  one  to 
"assume"  that  board  did  place  an  inordinate  weight  on  the 
completion of the appropriate level of PME.  We also note that in 
an identical case, the Commander, HQ ARPC, stated tkat in a  fully 
qualified selection process, ali eligible officers fall into one 
of  two  categories:  either  "fully  qualified"  01  "not  fully 
qualified." While the possibility exists that the nonselects are, 
in fact, not  fully qualified, the  results seem to indicate that 
the board  may  have compared their records against those with  ISS 
and determined that those without  ISS were not as well qualified 
for  promotion  as  those  who  had  ISS.  However,  this  does  not 
necessarily  mean  they  were  not  fully  qualified.  In  fact, the 
Board  Charge  specifies  that  completion  of  ISS  is  n o t   a 
prerequisite  for  promotion.  Consequently,  the  ARPC  Commander 
believed  it  was  reasonable  to  grant  favorable consideration  tc 
those applicants who approach the Board citing this issue as the 
basis for appeal. 

4.  In view  of  the  foregoing  and  in  the  absence  cf  a  basis  to 
question  the  integrity  of  the  Director  of  Personnel  and  the 
Commander  of  the  ARPC,  we  believe  that  any  doubt  should  be 
resolved  in  favor  of  the  applicant  by  having  his  record 
reevaluated  f o r   promotion  to  the  Reserve  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel by an S R B   for the FY96 ResAF board. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he be considered 

€or promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special 
Review Board  ( S R B )  ;  that  his  records be  evaluated  in comparison 
with  the  records  of  officers who  were  and  were  not  selected by 
the Fiscal Year 1996 Reserve of the Air Force Lieutenant Colonel 
Judge Advocate  Selection  Board;  and  that  the  recommendation  of 
the  SRB  be  forwarded  to  the  Alr  Force  Board  for  Correction  of 
Military  Records  at  the  earliest  practicable  date  so  that  all 
necessary and appropriate actions be completed. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on  2 F e b r u a r y   1999  under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Benedict A. Kausal  IV, Panel Chzir 
Mr. William E. Edwards, Member 
Mr. Mike Novel, Member 

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records, as  recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 0   May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings for Major W - - - ,  dated 

Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DP, dated 29 Jun 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jul 98. 

28 May 96. 

Panel Chair