RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01994
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for a Position Vacancy (PV) promotion to the  Reserve
grade of captain by the 1999 March Chaplains Captain Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Sep 98, he was informed that he would meet  the  criteria  for  the
captain selection board scheduled for Mar 99.  He was  later  told  he
would not meet the board because he did not have enough  time-in-grade
(TIG) and had not completed  the  chaplain  orientation  course.   The
regulation shows he did meet the TIG requirement and others that  were
in the same chaplain orientation course met the board.   He  completed
the chaplain orientation course in Feb 99, a month before the board.

In support of his  request,  applicant  submits  copies  of  documents
associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  These  documents
are appended at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On  22  Jan  97,  the  applicant  was  appointed  a  Chaplain,   first
lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, and was voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty.  He received  {3}  Officer  Performance  Reports
(OPRs)  in  the  grade  of  lst  lieutenant,  in  which  the   overall
evaluations were “Meets Standards.”

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) as 11  Apr
88.  He has been  progressively  promoted  to  the  Reserve  grade  of
captain, effective and with a date of rank of 22 Jan 01.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters  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  Promotion  Board  Secretariat,  HQ  ARPC/DPB,  stated  that   the
applicant provided  a  copy  of  the  mandatory  [in-  and  above-the-
promotion zone (I/APZ)] and Position Vacancy (PV) date of  rank  (DOR)
requirements for the 99 March Chaplains Captain Selection Board.   The
I/AP DOR requirement was 30 Sep 96 or earlier.  The PV DOR requirement
was 28 Feb 97 or earlier.  The applicant had a DOR of 22 Jan 97.   The
Directorate of Chaplain Individual Programs  (HQ  ARPC/HC),  indicated
there were no individual mobilization augmentee (IMA) PV quotas in the
grade of captain for this  board.   DPB  recommended  the  applicant’s
request be denied.   There  were  no  quotas  available  for  IMA  1st
lieutenants.  As there were no IMA quotas, none were promoted  via  PV
on this board.  If a Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  had  been
received at HQ ARPC/HC, it could not have been presented to a PV board
(Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion  and  indicated  that  the
recommendation by HQ ARPC/DPB seems  to  be  based  on  an  inaccurate
factor.  A reason given by  the  Directorate  of  Chaplain  Individual
Programs (HQ ARPC/HC) never previously  disclosed  and,  in  fact,  he
thinks made up to cover the fact that HQ ARPC/HC had  made  a  mistake
because of a failure on their part to read the regulations  for  a  PV
promotion carefully.  There is no evidence  to  support  this  present
explanation given by HQ ARPC/HC and this is the only factor upon which
HQ ARPC/DPB made their recommendation.  The evidence he has  presented
shows contradictions from HQ ARPC/HC’s  present  explanation  and  the
explanation(s) they have given in the past as to why his name was  not
submitted for a PV promotion in Mar 99.  He has provided a  number  of
facts to support his claim at Exhibit E.  The new statement  given  by
HQ ARPC/HC is a direct contradiction to what they told  the  Chief  of
Chaplain’s Office and to the head of Reserve Affairs in Wash  DC.   He
believes he has proven his case and he believes his records should  be
corrected.  A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Selection Board Secretariat, HQ ARPC/DPB, provided  the  following
information in response to the applicant’s  rebuttal  comments.   With
respect to HQ ARPC/HC changing their answers  to  him  about  his  own
promotion eligibility, the applicant’s  date  of  rank  (DOR)  to  the
Reserve grade of 1st lieutenant is 22 Jan 97.  The applicant  was  DOR
eligible for Position Vacancy (PV) nomination.  DOR requirement was 28
Feb 97 or earlier.  The applicant was not  DOR  eligible  for  in-  or
above-the-promotion  zone  (I/APZ)   promotion   consideration.    DOR
requirement for I/AP promotion to captain was 30 Sep  96  or  earlier.
The applicant further alleges that two  of  his  classmates  from  the
Chaplain’s Orientation Course were promoted off the board in question,
and he felt that at least one if  not  both  were  promoted  PV.   DPB
stated that all the  individuals  shown  on  the  list  the  applicant
included  were  individual  mobilization  augmentee  (IMA)   chaplains
promoted IPZ.  None of these officers met the eligibility requirements
for  PV  nomination;  all  were  considered   based   on   the   I/APZ
requirements.   DPB  indicated  that  completion   of   a   Chaplain’s
Orientation Course has no bearing on the regulatory guidelines of  the
USAFR for promotion to any grade.  DPB stated that PV  promotions  are
used as a force management tool.  Allocating quotas for PV  promotions
are based on the needs of the  service.   Until  the  FY01  Chaplain’s
Captain Promotion  Board,  the  IMA  chaplains  did  not  utilize  any
promotion quotas for the grade of captain, from the implementation  of
ROPMA (Oct 96) through  the  board  in  question  (Mar  99).   By  not
requesting or using PV quotas, the chaplains were  assured  that  each
I/APZ promoted lieutenant had a position to be  promoted  to,  without
having to over-grade or “double billet.”  They felt they could justify
having a high I/AP quota if they did  not  utilize  PV  opportunities.
For this board, the I/APZ quota for USAFR chaplains was 100% of  those
officers eligible; 21 officers were considered and  21  officers  were
selected.  As DPB previously stated,  HQ  ARPC/HC  provided  a  letter
attesting that the IMA chaplains did not have any PV quotas  available
for the FY00 Captains Board.  The IMA program promoted zero  chaplains
by way of PV for the fiscal year 2000.  As to the letter the applicant
provided from AF/HCX, which states the  applicant  did  not  meet  the
promotion board because he did not meet the DOR requirement, is a true
statement in that the only promotion board held was  the  I/APZ.   DPB
stated that their initial recommendation of denial  has  not  changed.
There is no possible way for the applicant to meet a  selection  board
that was not convened.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended
at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory  opinion  and  indicated  that  as
previously stated, the reason  he  feels  an  injustice  was  done  is
because HQ ARPC/HC misread the DOR requirement for a PV promotion.  He
has once again provided the reasons to support his position (refer  to
Exhibit H).  It is unfair that he is being criticized for  taking  two
years to complete the Chaplain’s  Orientation  Course.   Another  fact
which is frustrating to him is that he would have made the 30  Sep  96
I/APZ DOR requirement but, when he was applying for the program in 96,
there was a delay of several months because his folder was lost and he
had to fill out all of his information again.  Once again the advisory
writer denied his request for a change of record,  not  based  on  his
meeting the regulations as HQ ARPC/HC had  previously  contested,  but
now they are saying he should be denied because they did  not  promote
others.  Maybe others did not meet the requirements.  When he attended
the Reserve Chaplain Conference in Feb 01, sponsored by HQ ARPC/HC, it
was stated that for PV promotion, the only two  requirements  are  DOR
and that you need to be occupying a higher  slot.   He  had  fulfilled
both of  these  requirements.   He  believes  his  request  should  be
approved because he met all the criteria for a PV promotion  according
to the regulation.  He has submitted a copy of the regulation  showing
the requirements for a PV promotion for the board in question and  the
evidence that he accomplished these requirements.  HQ ARPC  now  seems
to want to add requirements about quotas or the  chaplain  orientation
course (which he had completed prior to the board convening) but these
are not called for in the regulation.

His Appointment Order clearly shows he was filling  a  captain’s  slot
for over two years prior to the captain’s board in Mar 99.   Prior  to
the Mar 99 board, HQ ARPC/HC never mentioned they were not  nominating
him because a PV was not available - he was told he did not  meet  the
time-in-grade for a PV promotion.

Complete copies of the response are appended at Exhibit 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.   It is regrettable that
the applicant received  conflicting  information  by  responsible  Air
Force officials as to why his name  was  not  submitted  for  Position
Vacancy (PV)  promotion  consideration  in  Mar  99.   However,  after
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and  applicant’s  complete
submission,  we  are  not  convinced  that  he  was  unjustly   denied
consideration for a PV promotion by the 1999 March  Chaplains  Captain
Selection Board.   In  this  respect,  we  note  that  there  were  no
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) PV quotas  available  for  the
selection board in question; and, that the applicant did not meet  the
date of rank (DOR) eligibility requirement for the mandatory  in-  and
above- the promotion zone (I/APZ) selection board, which was the  only
promotion board held at that time.  We are therefore unpersuaded  that
the applicant was unfairly treated or  that  there  was  an  abuse  of
discretionary authority when it was determined there would  be  no  PV
quotas available for the selection board  under  review.   As  to  the
applicant’s completion of a Chaplain’s Orientation Course, we did  not
find his school attendance pertinent to the issue  under  review.   In
view of the foregoing and in the absence of 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 9 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                  Ms. Mary C. Johnson, Member
                  Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 31 Oct 00.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Nov 00.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 21 Nov 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 6 Mar 01.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.
   Exhibit H.  Letters from applicant, dated 25 Mar 01, w/atchs,
         and 8 May 01, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair