RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-01765
            INDEX CODE 131.10  102.03
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be afforded a special records review regarding his promotability to
the grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC) on the Aug  67  promotion  cycle
and he be promoted retroactively to LTC, or at least  to  LTC  in  the
Retired Officer Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  Officer  Effectiveness  Report  (OER)  closing   7 Aug   67   was
unnecessary and destroyed his career by preventing  his  promotion  to
LTC and award of a Regular commission. His previous rater informed him
that he had been submitted for promotion  and  a  Regular  commission.
However, the base personnel chief wanted to move  a  friend  into  his
[the applicant’s] position and contrived to  have  him  reassigned  to
another job. The previous rater  then  had  the  new  rater  render  a
downgraded OER. Over some 31 years, the hurt  of  perceived  injustice
has tormented him.

A copy of his complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was a major  assigned  to
the 3345th Air Base Group in  Chanute  AFB,  IL  as  the  Chief,  Base
Operations and Training Division.

He was considered but not selected for LTC by the FY68  (20  Sep  67),
FY69 (16 Sep 68) and FY70 (21 Jul 69) temporary LTC selection boards.

The applicant's OERs from 10 Aug 62 through  15  Jun  69  reflect  the
following:

            PERIOD ENDING         EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
              13 Mar 63                      8-4
              28 Feb 65                      7-2
              14 Dec 65                      7-3
              30 Jun 66                      7-3
              16 Apr 67                      8-3
               7 Aug 67                      7-2 (FY68 Top Report)
              25 Jul 68                      8-3 (FY69 Top Report)
              15 Jun 69                      8-3 (FY70 Top Report

The  highest  rating  under  this  evaluation  system  was  9-4.   The
applicant's earlier  reports  do  not  have  "firewalled"  performance
factors and the overall ratings are not in the highest category.

On 28 May 68, the Officer Personnel Record Review  Board  advised  the
applicant that his request to void the OER ending 7 Aug 67 was denied.
 The applicant had objected to the content of the  OER  and  contended
that the 113 days of supervision were actually reduced to  59  due  to
his and his rater's periods of leave and temporary duty  (TDY).   None
of the leave or TDY periods were 30 days or longer.

The applicant retired in the grade of major on  1  May  1970  with  20
years and 4 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed the appeal and  provided  their  rationale  for
recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed the appeal and  provided  their  rationale  for
recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a response, indicating he is  not  asking  that
the 7  Aug  67  OER  be  voided.  He  wants  to  be  promoted  to  LTC
retroactively. He believes he should have been awarded a  Regular  Air
Force (RegAF) commission and that, due to  a  possible  administrative
error, his last two OERs “for promotion cycles" FY69 and FY70 did  not
go before the promotion boards. He argues  that  his  records  warrant
promotion to LTC.

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPO explains that not all RegAF appointment quotas were used
to fill vacancies because of record  quality.   Comments  by  his  OER
evaluators show that they believed he  had  a  chance,  based  on  his
records, for promotion and RegAF appointment. However,  even  officers
with more competitive records were not all promoted or  awarded  RegAF
appointment. DPPPO confirms that  the  last  two  OERs  for  promotion
cycles FY69 and FY70 did meet the boards.  DPPPO also invokes  laches,
asserting that the applicant's unreasonable delay regarding a  34-year
old  contention  greatly  complicates  the  Air  Force's  ability   to
determine the merits of this case.  Denial is still recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts  that  when  an  officer  becomes  eligible  for
promotion, the folder is put into  the  "consideration  for  promotion
stack." He believes his file inadvertently was  not  placed  into  the
"consideration   stack."   He   reiterates   his   belief   that   his
qualifications were so superior that he should have been selected LTC.

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  direct
promotion or promotion consideration  through  the  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) process. Contrary to the applicant's apparent  assertions,
the respective LTC promotion boards  reviewed  his  selection  folder,
including his last two OERs.  Further, he  has  provided  no  evidence
demonstrating that his records were so superior that  he  should  have
been selected  for  LTC  and  a  Regular  commission  when  originally
considered, or that they were unjustly  and  erroneously  rendered  to
warrant direct promotion or SSB consideration now.  We sympathize with
the disappointment the  applicant  has  apparently  carried  with  him
throughout these many years; however,  neither  the  documentation  he
provides nor the evidence of record sustains any of  his  allegations.
In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to  the  contrary,
we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  of  having
suffered either an error or an injustice and  we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 6 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member
                  Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 26 Jul 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Aug 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Sep 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 19 Dec 01.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Dec 01.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jan 02.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair