RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00105
                                 (Case 2)
            INDEX CODES:  131.00, 136.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel  as  though
selected  by  the  Calendar  Year  1998B  (CY98)  Lieutenant   Colonel
Selection Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98; or, as an alternative, as
an exception to policy, he be retired under the Fiscal Year  2000/2001
(FY00/01) Voluntary Early Retirement Program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He previously had a successful record correction by the Board  in  Jun
99.  Subsequently, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) approved
a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation for  his  P0598B  promotion
recommendation form (PRF) and  granted  promotion  reconsideration  by
that same board.  He  was  subsequently  nonselected  by  the  Special
Selection Board (SSB) that convened on 30 Aug 99.   The  SSBs  do  not
apply the same standards as central selection boards as far  as  a  DP
recommendation is concerned.  There is no remedy within the normal Air
Force process for the reprisal actions he suffered, and  this  process
is burdensome and slow.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  the
previous decision by the Board, his PRF appeal  package,  notification
of his nonselection, and his request for early retirement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is  25
Jul 83.

Applicant's Officer Effectiveness  Report/Officer  Performance  Report
(OER/OPR) profile since 1989 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      10 Jun 89  Meets Standards
      30 Apr 90  Meets Standards
      30 Apr 91  Meets Standards
      30 Apr 92  Meets Standards
      17 May 93  Training Report
      17 May 94  Training Report
      14 Nov 94  Training Report
      14 Nov 95  Meets Standards
      31 Oct 96  Not Rated - Report Removed By
                              Order of Secretary of Air Force
  #  31 Oct 97   Meets Standards
 ##  31 Oct 98   Meets Standards
###   1 Sep 99   Meets Standards

  # Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY98B  (1 Jun 98)
Lt Col Board.

 ## Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A  (19 Apr 99)
Lt Col Board.

### Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B  (30 Nov 99)
Lt Col Board.

On 30 Aug 99 and 10 Jan 00, respectively, the applicant was considered
and nonselected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by
SSBs.

On 22 Apr 99,  the  Board  considered  an  appeal  pertaining  to  the
applicant, in which he requested that his OPR rendered for the  period
15 Nov 95 through 31 Oct 96 be declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records; his records be corrected to reflect award of the  Meritorious
Service Medal (MSM) for his duty at the United States Air Force (USAF)
Academy (15 Nov 94 to 31 Oct 96); the “SWC/AE” medal  be  included  in
the record that goes before the supplemental promotion  board;  he  be
given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board, which convened  on  1  Jun  98,  with  his  corrected
record; and, if his record cannot be satisfactorily corrected  and  he
is not promoted to lieutenant colonel, he be  allowed  the  option  of
early retirement in FY99.  The Board recommended that the OPR rendered
for the period 15 Nov 95 through  31  Oct  96  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records; that he  be  awarded  the  MSM  for  service
performed at the Air Force Academy during the period 15 Nov 94  to  31
Oct 96; and, that he be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by SSBs for the CY98B  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board, and any subsequent boards for which the  OPR  closing
31 Oct 96 was a matter of record, and the MSM  was  not  a  matter  of
record.  The recommendation of the Board was approved by the Director,
Air Force Review Board’s Agency on 8 Jun 99.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
addressed the issue regarding direct promotion.  Based on the evidence
provided they recommended denial.  According to DPPPA, 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
have been a selectee by the P0598B  board,  they  do  believe  a  duly
constituted board applying the complete promotion criteria is  in  the
most advantageous position to render  this  vital  determination.   In
their view, the Board’s prerogative to do so  should  not  be  usurped
except under extraordinary circumstances.  Further, to grant a  direct
promotion would be unfair to all other  officers  who  have  extremely
competitive records and also did not get promoted.

DPPPA further indicated that both Congress and the Department  of  the
Defense (DOD) have made clear  their  intent  that  errors  ultimately
affecting promotion should be resolved through the use of SSBs.  Where
many good officers are competing for a limited number  of  promotions,
it is extremely competitive.  Without  access  to  all  the  competing
records and an appreciation  of  their  content,  DPPPA  continues  to
believe the practice of sending cases to SSBs is the fairest and  best
practice.  They noted that in the past, the  Board  considered  direct
promotion only in  the  most  extraordinary  circumstances  where  SSB
consideration has been deemed to be totally  unworkable.   In  DPPPA’s
view, the applicant’s case clearly does not fall into  that  category.
Other than his own opinion, he has provided no substantiation  to  his
allegations.  The burden of proof is on him.

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

The Retirement and Separations  Division,  AFPC/DPPRR,  reviewed  this
application and addressed the issue regarding the applicant’s  request
for early retirement.   They  recommended  denial.    DPPRR  indicated
that, although the applicant was eligible for  the  FY98  program,  he
chose instead to correct his military record.  The AFBCMR granted  his
request and further granted him consideration  for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by an SSB.  However, he was  not  selected
for  promotion.   Now  after   his   nonselection,   he’s   requesting
retroactive consideration for  early  retirement.   He  is  no  longer
eligible to apply.   The  applicant  does  not  meet  the  eligibility
criteria outlined for the FY00/01 Officer Voluntary  Early  Retirement
Program.  The early retirement program is a force-shaping tool and not
an  entitlement.   It  is  used  to   shape   the   force   and   meet
Congressionally-mandated  endstrengths.   The  FY00/01   Force-Shaping
Program does not include early retirement for line of  the  Air  Force
officers due to projected understrength in  officers  at  the  end  of
FY01.  Based on the projected understrength, a  drawdown  program  has
not been made available to the  general  Air  Force  population.   The
FY00/01 program is a narrowly focused force-shaping program, which  is
required to facilitate medical rightsizing  initiatives  and  to  help
correct imbalances in the Chaplain Corps.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished a response  and
additional documentary evidence, which are attached at Exhibit F.

Two statement were provided on behalf  of  the  applicant,  which  are
attached at Exhibits G and 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 and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However,  we  do  not  find  the  applicant’s  assertions
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility  (OPRs).   Therefore,  in  the
absence of  cogent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the
recommendation 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 27 Jun 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 31 Jan 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 5 Apr 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Apr 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 May 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, on applicant’s behalf, dated 19 May 00.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, on applicant’s behalf, dated 25 May 00.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair