RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01245, Cse 2
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Rectification of his hampered potential for  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel due to a wrongful five-year  removal  from  the  cockpit.   He
requests rectification via:

            a.  Direct promotion to lieutenant colonel.

            b.  Allocation of a Definitely Promote  recommendation  on
his revised Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF)  and  competition  on
another  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  CY99A  lieutenant
colonels board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His five year absence  from  flying  put  him  at  a  disadvantage  in
receiving actual in-depth flying experience  and  progressing  in  the
aviation community.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major.

In Jun 86 the applicant was involved in a mishap which resulted in the
loss of the aircraft.  He appeared before a  Flying  Evaluation  Board
(FEB) in Nov 86 and  the  FEB  recommended  he  remain  qualified  for
aviation service.  The convening and reviewing  authorities  disagreed
with the FEB and  recommended  disqualification.   The  applicant  was
disqualified on 5 Jan 88 from aviation service.

The applicant submitted an application to  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) on 25 Apr 89, to be reinstated
to aviation service qualification and the institution  of  appropriate
aeronautical orders and administrative actions.  The AFBCMR on 22  Aug
90 reviewed the  application  and  recommended  that  the  applicant's
records be corrected to show that the Aeronautical  Orders  suspending
him from flying be revoked and he be awarded  credit  for  Operational
Flying Duty Accumulator (OFDA) for the period of 1 Oct 88  through  31
Mar 91.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel  by  the  CY99A  and  CY99B  lieutenant  colonel
promotion boards.

The applicant filed an appeal to his  CY99A  promotion  recommendation
form (PRF) in Aug 99 and subsequently met a  special  selection  board
(SSB) on 10 Jan 00.  He was not selected for promotion by the SSB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer Evaluation Board Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB,  reviewed
this application and states in order for the applicant  to  receive  a
Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation on his PRF that was  previously
corrected, he would again need the senior  rater  and  the  Management
Level Review (MLR) President's support.  In the  applicant's  case  Lt
Gen M. was his rater and the MLR President, the applicant stated  that
in his application that the Lt Gen M. signed his revised PRF  but  did
not allocate a DP to him.

The applicant refers to his lack of flying time as the reason for  his
non-selection for promotion, but his senior rater  refers  to  another
factor for his non-selection.  The senior rater pointed out  the  lack
of depth and stratification.  Stratification is an  indication  of  an
evaluator's overall impression of a ratee's performance and potential.
 A consistent lack of stratification is  a  significant  part  of  the
applicant's record and is not attributed to a lack of time in flying.

DPPPEB takes exception to the applicant's focus on lack of progression
in the "flying arena."  Within the Air Force, many officers who for  a
variety of reasons, do not follow  a  normal  career  path,  but  they
progress and do very well when meeting the promotion processes.   They
recommend disapproval of the applicant's request to receive a "DP"  on
his revised PRF.

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

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPP,
states they concur with the AFPC/DPPPEB  evaluation  relating  to  the
applicant's PRF.  The Air Force's policy on evaluation reports is  the
report is considered accurate once written and it becomes a matter  of
record.  To challenge a PRF it is necessary to hear  from  the  senior
rater and the MLR board president.  Although  the  applicant  had  the
support of his senior rater to change the wording on his  PRF  in  his
initial request, he did not have that support from the senior rater or
the MLR board president to upgrade his PRF  to  a  DP.   DPPP  further
states that an officer may be qualified for a promotion, but it is the
judgement of the selection board, that the applicant may not have been
the best  candidate  for  promotion.   The  board  when  applying  the
complete promotion criteria is in the most  advantageous  position  to
render the vital  determination  in  the  promotion  process  and  the
board's authority should not be  usurped  except  under  extraordinary
circumstances.  Further,  to  grant  the  applicant's  request  for  a
promotion would be unfair to all the other officers who had  extremely
competitive records, and were not selected for  promotion.   Based  on
the evidence provided they recommend denying the requested relief.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
30 Jun 00, for review and response.  As of this date, no response from
the applicant has been received by this office.  However,  on  21  Jul
00, the applicant withdrew his case  in  order  to  obtain  additional
support for his request.  On 13 Jun 01, the applicant  requested  that
his case be reopened.  The applicant submitted additional  letters  of
support with his request which are attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 the applicant’s  submission,  the  Board
agrees with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and
adopts their rationale as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   With
respect to the applicant's request for a "DP"  recommendation  on  the
contested PRF, he would have needed the support of  his  senior  rater
and the MLR board president.  While he had the support of  the  senior
rater to sign the revised PRF, we find no evidence of  support  for  a
"DP."  The applicant feels his lack of flying and lack of  progression
in the flying arena are reasons for his not being selected during  the
promotion process; however, as noted by the Air Force,  many  officers
have not been able to follow a normal career path, but have progressed
and have done well in the promotion process.  Applicant's request  for
direct promotion was considered; however, the Board observes  that  an
officer may be qualified for promotion, but,  in  the  judgment  of  a
selection board, vested with the discretionary authority to  make  the
selections, may not be the best qualified of those available  for  the
limited number of promotion vacancies.  Therefore in  the  absence  of
clear-cut evidence that he would have been a selectee by the promotion
boards in question, a duly constituted selection board is in the  most
advantageous  position  to  make  this  vital  determination  and  its
prerogative  to  do  so  should  only  be  usurped  in   extraordinary
circumstances.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 8 August 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
                       Mr. Dale O. Jackson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Officer Selection Brief.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 25 May 00.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Jun 00.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 Jun 00.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 13 Jun 01.




                             VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                             Panel Chair