RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00788
                 INDEX CODE 131.01
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank to lieutenant colonel be changed  to  from  1 October
1996 to 22 June 1996, 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 Professional Military Education  (PME)  a  prerequisite  for
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 (ISS).

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was considered but not selected by the FY96 ResAF board,
which convened on 4 March 1995.  The applicant completed  Air  Command
and  Staff  College  on  8  January  1996.  A  later  promotion  board
subsequently selected him  for  promotion  to  the  Reserve  grade  of
lieutenant colonel with an effective date of 1 October 1996.

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.”   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, job responsibility, academic and
professional education, and specific  achievements.  The  charge  also
states that the completion of PME is not a prerequisite for 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 43 selected, 17 did not have the appropriate level of PME.

On 7 May 1996, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military  Records
(AFBCMR) considered the case of Major XXX,  whose  circumstances  were
identical to the applicant’s.  In Major XXX’s 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  an
apparent correlation between being determined  “fully  qualified”  for
promotion and completing PME, it was possible that members of the FY96
ResAF board may not have followed  the  Secretary’s  guidance  in  all
cases.  The AFBCMR concluded  that  any doubt should  be  resolved  in
favor of Major XXX and recommended that his records be considered  for
promotion by a Special Review Board (SRB) for the FY96 ResAF board.  A
copy of the Record of Proceedings for Major XXX case  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.  In November 1996, the AFBCMR granted the  same  relief  to
another applicant whose circumstances were identical to Major XXX.

_________________________________________________________________

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  for
selection or that  there  were  any  improprieties  in  the  selection
process.   Due  to   the   confidentiality   surrounding   the   board
proceedings, DP is unable to determine specifically why the  applicant
was not selected for 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 “assume”  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 concurs with the 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 11 May 1998
for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  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  made  by  the  board---so  long  as  those  selected  are   “fully
qualified.”  The fact that 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 that in
a fully qualified selection process, all eligible officers  fall  into
one  of  two  categories:  either  “fully  qualified”  or  “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 not a prerequisite for promotion. Therefore,  the
ARPC  Commander  believed  it  was  reasonable  to   grant   favorable
consideration to those applicants who approach the Board  citing  this
issue as the basis for appeal.

4.    In view of the foregoing and  in  the  absence  of  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 for  promotion  to  the
Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel by  an  SRB  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  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special 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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on   1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
                  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 16 Mar 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings for Major XXX, dated
                  28 May 96.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DP, dated 23 Apr 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 98.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair





AFBCMR 98-00788




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:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to             , be corrected to show that he be
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a
Special 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.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency