RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01959
            INDEX CODE:  131, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His nonselection for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Calendar
Year 1997B (CY97B) (8 Dec 97) be set aside and  he  receive  a  direct
promotion to the grade of colonel;  or,  in  the  alternative,  he  be
granted Special Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  by  the  CY97B
board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Secretary of Defense (SECDEF)  and  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
(SECAF) failed to comply with the intent of  Section  662,  Title  10,
United States  Code  (USC),  Promotion  Policy  Objectives  for  Joint
Officers, in that Joint Specialty Officers (JSOs) were not promoted at
a rate not less than the rate for those who are serving  on,  or  have
served on, the USAF headquarters staff.  The JSO  promotion  rate  was
55%  while  the  Headquarters  USAF  (HQ  USAF)  rate  was   64%.    A
contributing factor to this non-compliance was the  abuse  of  Section
616, Title 10, USC, in that there was no  compelling  need  warranting
the SECDEF to direct the maximum (15%)  allocation  of  below-the-zone
(BTZ) colonel promotions beyond SECAF authorizations for only 10%.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  3-page  statement
and a response to his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
was 27 Feb 67.

Applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of
colonel by the CY97B Colonel Board.

On 1 Oct 98, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the grade  of
lieutenant colonel, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of  1 May
93.  He was credited with 31 years, 7 months, and  4  days  of  active
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief  of  Operations,  Selection  Board  Secretariat,  AFPC/DPPB,
reviewed this application and indicated  that  applicant’s  accusation
that the SECDEF and SECAF failed to comply with the intent of  Section
662, Title 10, USC, is without merit.  Section 616(a), Title 10,  USC,
requires a promotion selection board to recommend  for  promotion  the
best qualified officers.  Board members take an oath to do  just  that
(Section 613, Title 10, USC).  Their  assessment  of  each  record  is
based on the whole person concept.  There are no quotas  of  any  kind
given to a  promotion  board  for  any  specific  group,  i.e.,  joint
duty/joint specialty officers.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation  &  Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPP,
reviewed this  application  and  indicated  that  an  officer  may  be
qualified  for  promotion,  but,  in  the  judgment  of  a   selection
board—vested with discretionary authority to  make  the  selections—he
may not be the best qualified  of  those  available  for  the  limited
number  of  promotion  vacancies.   Absent  clear-cut   evidence   the
applicant would be a selectee by the CY97B board, DPP believes a  duly
constituted board applying the complete promotion criteria is  in  the
most advantageous position to render this  vital  determination.   The
board’s prerogative to do  so  should  not  be  usurped  except  under
extraordinary circumstances and the applicant’s circumstances are  not
extraordinary.  Further, to grant a direct promotion would  be  unfair
to all other officers who competed for promotion by  the  CY97B  board
and were nonselected.  The applicant has provided nothing credible  to
prove his accusations.

DPP also  indicated  that  they  would  be  strongly  opposed  to  the
applicant receiving reconsideration by the CY97B SSB.  In order to  be
considered by SSB, the applicant would have to successfully appeal  an
error in his record.  He  is  not  challenging  the  content  of   his
officer selection record  (OSR).   As  such,  there  is  no  basis  to
reconsider the applicant as his record will be constructed  to  appear
just as it was when it was reviewed by  the  original  board  and  DPP
strongly   recommends   denial   of   the   request   for    promotion
reconsideration by the CY97B board.  Based on the  evidence  provided,
DPP recommends denial.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, also reviewed this application  and
provided  a  5-page  advisory  opinion  recommending  denial  of   the
applicant’s  request.   JA  reviewed  the  referenced   statutes   and
legislative history concerning the promotion  policy  for  joint  duty
officers  in  their  advisory  opinion  and  referenced  the  relevant
sections  of  the  law  in  addition  to  applicant’s  arguments  (see
Exhibit D).

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  applicant  on
5 Oct 98 for review and response.  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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded  that  he  should  be  given  the  requested  relief.    His
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  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.

_________________________________________________________________




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 3 June 1999, under the provisions  of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
                  Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 31 Jul 98.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPP, dated 18 Aug 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 18 Sep 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Oct 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair