RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01907

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The three Special Review Boards  (SRBs)  held  for  the  Fiscal  Years  1997
through 1999 (FY97  through  FY99)  Air  Force  Reserve  Lieutenant  Colonel
Position  Vacancy  (PV)  Selection  Boards   be   reviewed   and   promotion
eligibility correction.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her senior raters were never contacted to prepare  Promotion  Recommendation
Forms (PRFs) for the SRBs; she was never provided an opportunity  to  review
her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the FY97 SRB; and,  the  OSB  for  the
FY98 SRB was incomplete.

The applicant states that the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC)  told  her
they did not know who her senior raters were at the time of  the  PV  boards
and did not attempt to contact them.  As a result, she notified  her  senior
raters for the preparation of her PRFs for each PV  board.   Despite  asking
many times for a copy of her OSB, she never was provided  a  copy  prior  to
the board.  In addition, the fax copy of the OSB she received for  the  FY98
SRB was not legible  and  did  not  include  a  separate  entry  for  points
received from 27 May 1997 to 26 May 1998.  Furthermore, throughout  the  SRB
process she did not receive any guidance or help from ARPC.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving  on  active  duty  (Active  Guard/Reserve
(AGR)) in the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank of  1
September 1999.



On 14 January 2000, the Board considered  and  granted  applicant’s  request
that she be considered for promotion to  the  Reserve  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by the FY97, FY98, and FY99 PV boards.  For  an  accounting  of  the
facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and  the  rationale  of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at  Exhibit
C.

During the week of 19 through 24 June 2000,  three  SRB  were  conducted  in
conjunction with  the  FY01  Reserve  of  the  Air  Force  Line  and  Health
Professions Captain and Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection  Boards.   In
the opinion of a majority of the voting members, the  applicant  should  not
have been recommended for promotion by the FY97, FY98, and  FY99  Air  Force
Reserve Line Lieutenant Colonel PV Selection Board (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied.  ARPC/DPB  states,  in  part,
that three separate SRBs were convened, comprised  of  18  different  senior
officers, who came to the same conclusion  not  to  promote  the  applicant.
Using the “whole person” concept and comparing the applicant’s record to  30
other officers in the SRB process (10 benchmark records at  each  SRB),  the
board members decided she had not  clearly  demonstrated  the  potential  to
assume a higher grade in 1996 (FY97 board), 1997 (FY98  board),  or  in  the
1998 (FY99 board).  Both the Secretary of the Air Force  and  the  Secretary
of Defense have approved the results of the SRBs.  No improprieties  existed
that could cause question to the procedures or results of  the  three  SRBs.
Furthermore, no errors in material content  of  the  selection  record  have
been presented.

The ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that  the  evaluation  failed  to  answer  any  of  her
issues.  Throughout the three SRBs, she never received requested support  or
direction from ARPC.  Although the Board  directed  that  ARPC  provide  her
senior rater the opportunity to prepare a PRF for each  of  the  SRBs,  they
never contacted her senior rater.  In addition, she did not receive  an  OSB
for the first SRB; the OSB prepared for the second  SRB  was  illegible  and
missing a separate entry for points received during the period  27 May  1979
to 26 May 1998 and PME data; and she never received  notification  regarding
the outcome of any of the SRBs.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response  to  the  Board’s  request  for  additional  view  and  comments
ARPC/DPB states, in part, the following:

      a.    During an initial telephone  conversation  with  ARPC/DPBS,  the
applicant indicated that she was on a limited recall  active  duty  tour  in
the same locations as her senior raters and would obtain the  PRFs  herself.
Since she volunteered to obtain  the  PRFs  and  timeliness  was  important,
there was no reason for ARPC to duplicate her efforts.  Her PRFs did  arrive
in time for each board and were placed in her selection folder.

      b.    ARPC faxed the applicant on numerous times, a copy  of  the  OSB
for the FY97 board, but the applicant felt it was a very poor quality.

      c.    Since the FY98 board convened in June 1997,  a  data  entry  for
participation from May 1997 through May 1998 was not possible.

      d.    An OSB did not exist  for  the  FY97,  FY98,  and  FY99  boards;
therefore, they were  created  to  match  her  career,  as  it  should  have
appeared to the directed SRBs.

ARPC/DPB also states that the applicant’s record was not  strong  enough  to
compete favorably  at  each  of  the  SRBs.   Specifically,  they  note  the
following:

      a.     The  lack  of  Professional  Military  Education  (PME)  was  a
significant detriment considering that all the  benchmark  records  for  the
FY97 SRB had completed both levels of PME.

      b.    The lack of completion of Squadron Officer  School  (SOS),  lack
of a Masters degree, and the second lieutenant Officer Effectiveness  Report
(OER) combined to provide several discriminators separating her record  from
the benchmark selects for the FY98 and FY99  SRBs  and  placing  her  record
with the nonselects.

The ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s states that  although  ARPC  indicates  that  her  PRFs  and
OERs/OPRs were not strong enough to overcome the discriminating  factors  to
obtain promotion, every OPR she  has  received  since  1991  had  a  general
officer endorsement.  Whereas,  the  benchmark  records  were  predominately
endorsed by colonels or lieutenant  colonels.   Furthermore,  her  PRFs  for
each of the three SRBs were signed by either a  three-star  general  officer
or a four-star equivalent civilian, and her positions/assignment since  1989
have been at the Air Staff and Secretariat level.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

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 applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that
relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted;  however,
we do  not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The  office
of primary responsibility has adequately addressed  applicant’s  contentions
and we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the
applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered  either  an
error or an injustice.  Hence, we find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  01-01907  in
Executive Session on 19 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
                  Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, dated 18 Jan 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D.  Letters, ARPC/DPB, dated 24 Jun 00, 23 Oct 00
                & 23 Feb 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 16 Oct 01.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 01.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Nov 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jan 02.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 1 Feb 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 02.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 02, w/atchs.




                                   FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III
                                   Panel Chair