RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02992
            INDEX CODES:  111.01, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  FRED L. BAUER

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His nonselection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by
the CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 8 Jul 96, be set
aside.

The  Promotion  Recommendation  (PRF),  AF  Form  709,  prepared   for
consideration by the CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on
8 Jul 96, be upgraded to a “Definitely Promote.”

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB), Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)
closing 29 Mar 96, and the CY96C PRF be corrected to reflect his  duty
title as “Joint Plans Officer, Plans, Policy and Operations Division ,
ACofS, J1,” effective 3 Jun 95.

He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel  as  though
selected by the CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Board, which  convened  on  8
Jul 96.

As  an  alternative,  he  be  given  Special  Selection  Board   (SSB)
consideration, without the use of PRFs, with his corrected record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  not  properly  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.  His record was defective and he was the victim of
illegally operating Air Force promotion and  promotion  recommendation
systems.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a brief from counsel,
a statement of certification of his official duty title, a copy of his
Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  closing  29  Mar  97,  and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 Jun 97, the applicant was relieved from active duty and his
name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL),
effective 27 Jun 97, in the grade of major.  He was credited with
17 years, 1 month, and 16 days of active duty service.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1987 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       1 Mar 87  1-1-1
       1 Mar 88  1-1-1
       1 Mar 89  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 89  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 90  Meets Standards
      18 Oct 90  Meets Standards
      28 Apr 91  Meets Standards
      28 Apr 92  Meets Standards
      17 Jun 93  Training Report
      17 Sep 93  Training Report
      17 Jun 94  Meets Standards
      21 Mar 95  Meets Standards
  #  29 Mar 96   Meets Standards
      29 Mar 97  Meets Standards

# Top Report - CY96C (8 Jul 96) Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Evaluations Boards Section, AFPC/DPPPEB, reviewed this application
and recommended denial.  According to DPPPEB, there was no evidence to
support the applicant’s claim that he received anything but  fair  and
equitable consideration  by  both  the  management  level  review  and
central selection boards.

A complete copy of the DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
recommended denial.  DPPPA indicated they concurred  with  AFPC/DPPPEB
that the applicant has failed to provide evidence necessary to support
his claims of error in his appeal.   DPPPA  noted  that  much  of  the
documentation presented in this appeal was virtually identical to that
which they have repeatedly reviewed with other appeals and they  found
it to be nothing more than unsubstantiated conjecture.

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this  application
and addressed the  contentions  regarding  the  violation  of  Federal
statutes and DOD Directive in conducting selection boards.

A complete copy of the DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The Staff Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  In JA’s opinion,  the  applicant  has  failed  to
present relevant evidence of any  error  of  injustice  affecting  his
military record.

A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, counsel indicated that they found at least one  point
of agreement  with  one  of  the  advisory  opinions;  that  is,  JA's
admittance that the present promotion system is not perfect  and  will
be continuously improved.  No system is ever  likely  to  be  perfect.
However, they are not asking that the Air Force  immediately  come  up
with a flawless system.  They are asking that
the Board recognize that the weaknesses in the  present  system,  when
combined  with  the  factual  problems   outlined   in   the   initial
application, marks the applicant's case as one in which basic fairness
dictates that he be given relief, or at least one last shot at an SSB.

Counsel's complete response and additional documentary evidence
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  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, including  the  statement
from  the  Superintendent,  Services  Branch,  and   his   contentions
concerning the contested duty title, OPR and  PRF,  his  consideration
for promotion by the selection board in question,  and  the  promotion
process in general were duly noted.   However,  we  do  not  find  the
applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in  support  of
his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale  provided
by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility  (OPRs)  concerning
these issues.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  clear  and  convincing
evidence to the contrary, we agree with  the  recommendations  of  the
OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice.   Accordingly,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
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 23 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 10 Nov 97.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 3 Dec 97.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 22 Jul 98.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 4 Sep 98.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Sep 98.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, counsel, dated 12 Nov 98, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair