RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-03321
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank in the grade of major be changed from 22 Nov 99 to 14
May 99, with back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  involuntary  delay  of  his  promotion  to  major   was   unjust,
unwarranted, and not handled correctly in accordance with  established
law.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and copies of his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs).

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is an Air National Guard (ANG) officer  serving  on
active duty in the grade of major, having been promoted to that  grade
on 22 Nov 99.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application is contained in  the
letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the   Air   Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPPU, reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial. DPPU noted the  applicant’s  contentions  that
his position vacancy promotion was improperly delayed.   According  to
DPPU, NGR (AF) 36-4, Chapter 3, Position Vacancy  Promotion,  dated  1
Feb 92,  states,  “The  Air  National  Guard  (ANG)  position  vacancy
promotion  program  is  designed  to   provide   officers   who   have
demonstrated  high  potential  and  exceptional  abilities  with   the
opportunity for accelerated promotion.  These promotions are to  serve
as a means of early identification of the most  highly  qualified  and
motivated leaders of  the  future.   Officers  to  be  considered  for
position  vacancy  promotion  must  have  a   documented   record   of
performance and potential that clearly supports a  recommendation  for
promotion ahead of their contemporaries.  Each level of  command  must
thoroughly review  nominations  for  position  vacancy  promotion  and
ensure that only the most highly qualified officers are considered for
accelerated promotion.  Position vacancy  promotions  are  not  to  be
routinely  offered  to  all  officers.”   NGR  (AF)  36-4  eligibility
requirements states the officer must be  recommended  for  a  position
vacancy promotion by his/her immediate commander.  It should be  noted
that there is no supporting  documentation  submitted  indicating  the
applicant's immediate supervisor had submitted him  for  promotion  in
the Apr/May 99 timeframe.

Regarding the applicant’s contention that the delay of  his  promotion
was improperly processed in accordance with Title 10,  14311(b),  DPPU
indicated that the involuntary delay authority referenced  by  him  is
for officers who have been considered by a mandatory promotion  board.
Since the applicant was considered for a  position  vacancy  promotion
(an accelerated promotion), this provision is not  applicable  to  his
case.  Overall,  the  applicant’s  case  did  not  provide  supporting
documentation that an injustice or error occurred and  it  incorrectly
references authorities within the law that are not applicable.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated he hopes  that  the  evidence
presented is sufficient for the Board to make  an  informed  decision.
The advisory opinion was just that, an opinion.  The advisory provided
not one shred of documentation to support its claims that he is  wrong
and should not be granted relief.  His intent  to  right  a  wrong  is
based only on principle at this point as his request for extension  of
his statutory tour was recently denied, as he is pushing 22  years  of
active duty service.  Therefore, he will not have the  opportunity  to
be promoted again  and  shall  begin  considering  a  retirement  date
sometime next year.  This notwithstanding, he intends to  retire  with
the  knowledge  that  he  has  served  his   country   honorably   and
successfully for over 25 years.

Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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, a majority  of  the  Board  does  not  find  the
applicant’s  assertions  sufficiently  persuasive  to   override   the
rationale provided by the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility
(OPR).  Other than his own uncorroborated  assertions,  the  applicant
does  not  provide  convincing  documentation  that   there   was   an
involuntary  delay  in  processing   his   unit   vacancy   promotion.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence which shows to the  satisfaction
of the Board majority that the applicant’s  date  of  rank  should  be
backdated, the Board majority agrees with the  recommendation  of  the
OPR and adopts their rationale as the basis for its decision that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, a majority  of
the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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

Mr. Carey and Ms. Boockholdt voted to deny the  request.   Mr. Mulgrew
abstained  from  consideration  of  the  application.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 31 Mar 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Apr 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair