RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00272
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of rank (DOR) to the Reserve grade of major be 28 June 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Had she separated from active duty with  a  line  number  for  major,  after
selection for promotion by the Reserve promotion board, and  the  validation
of her position at CENTCOM  as  a  funded  position,  she  would  have  been
eligible for an accelerated  promotion  as  of  the  date  of  the  position
validation.  Since she was selected for promotion by the active  duty  as  a
result of a Special Selection Board, at the direction of  the  AFBCMR,  well
after the Air Force validation of her position, she  was  not  afforded  the
opportunity to request an accelerated promotion from her supervisor.

She was selected for promotion to major by the Fiscal Year (FY)  02  Reserve
of the Air Force Line and Non-line  Major  Promotion  Selection  Board  that
convened on 19 February 2001.  Her effective date  of  promotion  from  that
board was 1 October 2001.  Subsequently, she was selected for  promotion  by
the active duty Air Force in a supplemental promotion board, which  convened
on 7 May 2001.  She was awarded a  promotion  date  from  that  board  of  1
November 2000, had she still been on active duty.  As she had  been  filling
a lieutenant colonel position, she would have been eligible to  be  promoted
to the grade of major, effective with the validation of her position by  the
Air Force, via an accelerated promotion.   That  paragraph/line  number  was
validated by the Air  Force  as  a  funded  billet  on  28  June  2001.   An
accelerated promotion would have been requested and approved by the  CENTCOM
J5 immediately upon approval of the billet, based on her previous  selection
for promotion while on active duty, had that selection occurred  before  she
separated.

Since the reserve promotion system is based on fiscal year date of rank,  by
not being able to accelerate her promotion when the position was  validated,
she  now  falls  into  a  later  fiscal  year  for  all   future   promotion
considerations.  This continues to leave her behind her peers, just  as  the
original active duty promotion board did.  In order  to  completely  rectify
the promotion situation created by the  original  oversight  of  the  active
duty promotion system, she requests to be returned to  a  competitive  state
with her peers.  This requires a date of rank  of  28  June  2001  in  FY01,
rather than FY02.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a  personal  statement  and
other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in Air Force  Reserve  in  the  grade  of
major, with a date of rank of 24 September 2001.

On 19 January 2001 the Air Force Board for Correction  of  Military  Records
(AFBCMR) considered and granted the applicant’s  request  that  her  Officer
Selection Brief for the Calendar Year (CY)  2000A  Central  Major  Selection
Board be amended to show, as an exception to  policy,  the  reason  for  her
Date of Separation (DOS) was to enter into the  active  Reserves,  and  that
her corrected record be reconsidered for promotion to  the  grade  of  major
for that selection board.  She was considered and selected for promotion  to
the grade of major, with a date of rank of 1 October 2001 (Exhibit B).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommended denial.  They indicated that based on her date of  rank
(DOR) and total year service date (TYSD), she would have been placed on  the
appropriate Reserve Active Status List (RASL) promotion list  (at  the  time
of transfer to the USAFR) with a DOR and effective date of 1  October  2001,
the exact same results she received  when  she  was  considered  by  a  RASL
promotion board.  She has competed with and will continue  to  compete  with
her RASL peers for promotion within the USAFR.

Additionally, she apparently does not have the  support  of  her  supervisor
and senior rater of record  for  an  acceleration  of  her  promotion  date.
Acceleration of a promotion date is not an entitlement;  it  is  used  after
careful consideration of the suitability of early  promotion,  by  both  the
supervisor and senior rater.  Without  their  support  (in  the  form  of  a
request for acceleration as  prescribed  in  AFI  36-2504,  paragraph  6.5),
acceleration is not appropriate.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluation  and  provided  a  response,  with
attachments, that is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPB  provided  an  amended  advisory  and  recommended  denial.    They
indicated  that  based  on  the  additional  information  provided  by   the
applicant, their original advisory is amended.

It appears the applicant’s chain  of  command  did  support  an  accelerated
promotion.  The request for accelerated promotion did arrive at HQ ARPC.

When they received the request  for  acceleration,  the  Reserve  Management
Vacancy System (RMVS) was checked  to  insure  the  applicant  occupied  the
position for which nominated and was the sole occupant of the  position  for
which  acceleration  was  requested.   RMVS,   Manpower/Personnel   Position
Information showed the applicant was not the sole occupant of the  position,
and was not even the  incumbent  in  the  position.   The  incumbent  was  a
lieutenant colonel.  The applicant  was  coded  “Overage/Undergrade…grade  2
under author-Grade.”  HQ ARPC phoned  the  program  manager  to  report  the
problem, but nothing  was  done  to  correct  the  overage.   In  fact,  the
overage/undergrade  situation  still  exists   (seven   months   after   the
acceleration request).  The applicant did not meet the requirement of  being
the  sole  occupant  or  incumbent  in  the  higher  graded  position.   The
applicant did  not  meet  the  requirement  of  early  promotion.   She  was
promoted on time - promotion regardless of position availability.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________








APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a  response  that  is  at
Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommended denial.  They indicated  that  the  applicant’s  senior
rater’s request to have her date of  rank  (DOR)  adjusted  to  24 September
2001 has been granted.

When MilPDS became the computer system of record, some changes were made  to
the “overgrade/overage” code definitions.   At  the  time  of  the  original
request from the applicant’s senior rater to accelerate her promotion to  24
September 2001,  they  were  unaware  of  those  changes.   They  have  just
recently been notified, and have made the correction to the applicant’s  DOR
to reflect the requested DOR.

In the applicant’s  letter  of  22  May  2002,  she  also  requests  further
adjustment to her DOR to reflect the date  the  position  she  is  occupying
became a funded position (28 June 2001).  They are  unable  to  comply  with
that request.

The applicant’s senior rater specifically requested 24 September  2001.   In
the letter requesting the acceleration, the senior  rater  acknowledged  the
position became funded (in his mind) on 28 June and that the  applicant  was
occupying the position on that date.  Although the senior rater  could  have
requested any date on or after 28 June, he used 24 September.

The date of the  letter  from  the  senior  rater  was  24  September  2001,
requesting the  promotion  date  of  24  September.   Normally,  they  would
publish the order with an  effective  date  and  DOR  of  26 September.   By
policy, the  requested  date  for  an  accelerated  promotion  must  be  two
business days after the date the request is received.   This  is  to  enable
them to perform the appropriate verifications and publish  promotion  orders
in time for the newly promoted officer to receive the  order  prior  to  the
effective date of promotion.  It also enables them to comply  with  the  law
that prohibits back-dating a promotion.

The senior rater’s letter specifically requested the  DOR  of  24 September.
They have found that due to changes in MilPDS,  they  were  able  to  comply
with the request after the fact.  Simply because the position was funded  as
of 28 June does not entitle the  applicant  to  that  date.   After  careful
consideration of her skills and ability, the senior rater  made  a  decision
that the applicant deserved to be promoted as of September.



The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluation  and  provided  a  response,  with
attachment, that 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  an  error  or  an  injustice  warranting  a  change  in   the
applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to 28 June  2001.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  The  applicant’s  initial  appeal
to the AFBCMR resulted in her promotion to the grade of major with a DOR  of
1 November 2000 had she remained on active duty. However, by  the  time  the
results of the Special  Selection  Board  were  announced  she  had  already
transferred to the Air Force Reserve and had been selected for promotion  to
the Reserve grade of major with a DOR of 1 October  2001.   Based  on  these
circumstances and the fact that she had been filling a lieutenant  colonel’s
position, her senior rater recommended  her  for  an  accelerated  promotion
with a DOR of 24 September 2001.  This recommendation was approved  and  the
applicant currently has a DOR of 24 September 2001.  However, the  applicant
believes that her DOR should be further  adjusted  to  the  date  she  began
occupying the lieutenant colonel’s  position,  28  June  2001.   We  do  not
agree.  As noted by the Air  Staff,  an  accelerated  promotion  is  not  an
entitlement.  Further,  when  the  senior  rater  requested  an  accelerated
promotion, he could have requested the earlier date, however,  he  did  not.
It appears the September date was  selected  so  that  the  applicant  would
benefit during future promotion considerations by placing her in an  earlier
Fiscal Year promotion  group.   The  applicant  has  presented  insufficient
evidence that it was the intent of the senior rater  to  have  her  promoted
earlier than 24 September 2001.  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 DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-00272
in Executive Session on 6 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 January 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 12 February 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 February 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 February 2002,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 15 April 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 April 2002.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 May 2002.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 7 June 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 June 2002.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 July 2002, w/atch.




                                MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                Panel Chair