RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00957
            INDEX CODE:  131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year
1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to classified concerns,  his  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  and
award citations that were accomplished from 16 Nov 91 through 8 Apr 99  fail
to completely and accurately reflect the full scope of his  responsibilities
and  to  completely  and  accurately  communicate  the  impact  of  his  job
performance on individual  unit  and  overall  Air  Force  missions.   As  a
result, his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) did not reflect  a  complete
assessment of his potential to serve in the higher grade.  His senior  rater
generated a replacement PRF that more accurately  reflects  his  performance
and future potential.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  granted
him an SSB, but denied most of the  requested  changes  to  his  PRF,  again
resulting in nonselection for promotion.

He has  achieved  the  highest  professional  certification  in  acquisition
related duties.  However, classification concerns precluded a more  detailed
duty description in his  OPR  which  resulted  in  his  current  acquisition
position  classification   reflecting   an   incorrect   level   of   career
development.

In support of his request applicant  provided  a  personal  statement;  and,
letters of support from his senior rater and raters.   Applicant’s  complete
submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system indicates that  applicant  was
appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  13  Jan  84  and
was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty (EAD) on 14 Apr 84.  He  was
integrated  into  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  8  Sep  87  and   has   been
progressively promoted to the grade of  major,  having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Feb 96.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the CY99B and CY00A Central Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Boards,
which convened on  30  Nov  99  and  28  Nov  00,  respectively.   Applicant
currently has a projected date of separation (DOS) of 30 Apr 04.   Applicant
submitted a corrected PRF to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  and
requested SSB consideration.  The ERAB approved partial  correction  of  his
PRF and approved SSB consideration.  On 22 Jan 01,  he  was  considered  and
not selected by SSB for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  for
the CY99B board.

______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer  Promotions,  Appointments,  and  Selective  Continuation
Branch, AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed  applicant’s  request  and  recommends  denial.
DPPPO states that the applicant submitted two very similar  appeals  to  the
AFBCMR;  however,  both  were  returned  to  the  applicant.   He  has   not
substantiated his contentions in compliance  with  Air  Force  policies  and
guidelines.  He was advised of  his  entitlement  to  communicate  with  the
board president to inform him of the classified nature of  his  assignments;
however, he elected not to exercise that entitlement.

DPPPO noted that an audit report  dated  16  Feb  00,  investigated  by  the
Office of the Inspector General (IG) revealed that the allegation  that  Air
Force officers  working  on  special  access  and  other  highly  classified
programs were at a disadvantage was not substantiated.  Omitting  classified
information from officers’ performance reports did not significantly  affect
their  chance  of  being  promoted.   Officers  working  on  special  access
programs have been promoted to major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel  above
the Air Force average promotion rate from 1997 through 1999.

Regarding the applicant’s assertions  concerning  his  critical  acquisition
position (CAP),  DPPPO  states  that  the  Acquisition  Assignments  Branch,
AFPC/DPASA stated that his assertions are based  on  incorrect  information.
Only lieutenant colonel positions can be  designated  as  CAPs.   Therefore,
even if his unit would  have  been  able  to  convert  his  Duty  Air  Force
Specialty Code (DAFSC) to N63A, the unit would not have been  able  to  code
his position as a CAP.  Consequently, he would not have been  designated  as
an acquisition corps member.  Critical acquisition  positions  are  selected
positions that must be filled by  members  of  the  Acquisition  Corps  (see
Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded and states that DPPPO  is  correct  in  their  statement
that he did not write a letter to the  P0599B  board  president  as  to  the
classified nature of his  duty  assignments.   Program  security  guidelines
preclude identifying specific duty assignments  with  individual  classified
activities.  It is his belief that a  non-specific  statement  that  he  was
involved in highly classified work would have been inappropriate  and  would
not have provided the board with further insight into his record.

The IG Audit Report does not indicate whether the subject group of  officers
included officers assigned to classified units;  or,  officers  assigned  to
unclassified  units  that  acknowledged  or  did   not   acknowledge   doing
classified work.  The report does not address the  correlation  between  the
total years an officer  spent  working  on  a  program  and  the  impact  on
promotion rates.  Comments on each of the factors that the  board  considers
must often be tempered with security concerns.

The need to provide the ratee with a credible, competitive record  conflicts
with the need to protect national security, whereas  a  rater  must  err  in
favor of protecting national  security.   From  1991  to  the  present,  his
raters were limited in their ability to  document  his  record  due  to  the
classified or compartmented nature of much of his work.  In some  cases  his
raters had no direct  knowledge  of  specific  activities  and  based  their
assessments on a subset of his tasks.

DPASA based the assertion that he would not have been  able  to  obtain  CAP
status on the fact that he occupies a major's position.  However,  paragraph
6.a.(2) of the same document cited states "Individuals  who  are  not  corps
members may be considered for critical positions, if they qualify for  entry
into the Acquisition Corps."  He meets or exceeds all the minimum  standards
including, "serving in the military grade O-4 or above."  Which means an  O-
4 occupying an O-5 CAP is granted Acquisition Corps status during  the  time
he or she occupies the CAP.  He was  hired  through  the  selective  manning
process  based  on  experience,  training,   and   the   recommendation   of
individuals knowledgeable  of  his  past  activities.   It  is  unjust  that
although he exceeded  the  requirements  his  supervisor  has  set  for  the
position, his predecessor's failure to properly classify the position  makes
it appear as though his responsibilities are of a more routine nature.

In further support of his request applicant provided a  personal  statement;
the AFPC/DPPO letter; and, several memorandums in support  of  his  request.
His complete submission is 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 that would lead us to believe  that
direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  is  warranted.   After
thoroughly reviewing the applicant's complete  submission,  to  include  the
pertinent classified documentation that was provided, we are  not  persuaded
that he has been a victim of an error or injustice.  We took note  that  his
former senior rater provided  a  subsequent  Promotion  Recommendation  Form
(PRF) to replace his original PRF.  In our opinion,  the  proposed  PRF  was
not substantially different nor did it appear to  significantly  change  the
record to the extent that reversal of his nonselection for  promotion  would
be appropriate.  With respect to his contention that his current  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) and acquisition position  classification  reflects  an
incorrect level of  career  development,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice in this matter.  It is our  opinion
that evidence has not been provided which would persuade us to believe  that
the requested changes, in and  by  themselves,  would  have  resulted  in  a
different decision by the promotion boards.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  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 4 Sep 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. John J. Nethery, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 May 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jun 01, w/atchs.




                                             JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                             Panel Chair