RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01868
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.10;135.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His nonselection for promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY01B
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be removed or considered  a
below-the-zone (BPZ) nonselection.

His Date of Rank (DOR) be changed to 16 Mar 98, the  date  he  entered
Extended Active Duty (EAD).

He  be  made  in-the-promotion-zone  (IPZ)  eligible  for  the   CY02A
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because  of  changes  in  the  way  AFPC  interpreted  his   promotion
eligibility when he began an EAD tour, he was  not  able  to  meet  an
active  duty  lieutenant  colonel  promotion  board  in  a  Below-the-
Promotion-Zone (BPZ) category.  When he did meet an active duty board,
it was an IPZ board and he had fewer years of active duty service  and
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) than fellow candidates.   Based  on
his 8 Mar  96  DOR,  he  would  have  normally  met  the  IPZ  Reserve
lieutenant colonel board, but was ineligible because he is  on  active
duty.

His phase points (average number of years and months  of  commissioned
service that an officer should complete when promoted to a  particular
grade) are where they should be for IPZ  consideration  by  the  CY02A
Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.

The policy correction that allows Reserve officers serving an EAD tour
to compete for active duty promotions did not address the  DOR  issue,
which in  his  case  gives  him  a  DOR  several  years  beyond  other
candidates competing for promotion.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
evaluation prepared by the relevant office of the Air Force  found  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  On  21  Apr
00, the applicant was advised of the change to  promotion  eligibility
for officers in the Limited Period Recall Program  (LPRP).   Applicant
was provided the option of curtailing his EAD tour  or  continuing  on
EAD and meeting  an  active  duty  promotion  board.   On  4  May  00,
applicant elected to continue on active duty and  understood  that  he
would be considered for promotion by  active  duty  promotion  boards.
Applicant also requested to meet all boards he had missed since  being
on active duty.  Applicant was scheduled to meet a  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Board (30 Nov 99)  as  an
IPZ candidate and also became eligible for the CY00 Lieutenant Colonel
Board as an IPZ candidate.  Applicant met and was nonselected by  both
boards.

On 26 Nov 00,  applicant  applied  through  the  AFBCMR  to  have  his
nonselections from the  CY99B  and  CY00A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Boards
removed based on his having met the Boards with one OPR and not having
the appropriate level of PME.  AFPC/DPPPOO supported his  request  and
it was approved by the AFBCMR.  Applicant was notified that  he  would
become be eligible to meet the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel  Board  as  an
IPZ candidate.  At no time did  the  applicant  request  his  tour  be
curtailed or that he be removed from the active duty list.

Applicant contends he was not provided the opportunity to meet any BPZ
promotion boards.  As he states, active duty officers usually meet two
BPZ boards before  being  considered  IPZ.   It  is  not  unusual  for
officers  who  enter  active  duty  either  through  recall  programs;
interservice transfers, or based on the amount of constructive service
credit an officer may have.  In addition, it is not  mandated  by  law
that an officer be provided BPZ considerations.

Applicant contends his DOR should be changed to allow him  to  compete
IPZ for the CY02 Lieutenant Colonel Board.  He indicates  that  the  1
Oct 96 change to AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and  Dates  of  Rank,  was
done at a time when EAD officers  were  not  allowed  to  compete  for
active duty promotions.  This was not true for  all  Reserve  officers
coming onto active duty.  Only  Reserve  officers  in  the  LPRP  were
ineligible for promotion.  All other Reserve officers entering  active
duty under recall programs or other transfer programs  maintained  the
grade and date of rank they had prior to  entering  active  duty.   In
addition, many of them became immediately eligible for  promotion  IPZ
and were not afforded the  opportunity  to  have  their  nonselections
removed.  This is  also  true  of  officers  transferring  from  other
branches of service.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
Aug 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   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
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  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 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  02-01868
in Executive Session on 25 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
      Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Aug 02.




                                   LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
                                   Panel Chair