RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00970
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive Special Selection Board (SSB)  consideration  by  the  CY99A  (19
April 1999) (P0599A) central lieutenant  colonel  selection  board  with  an
amended Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) which  accurately  reflects  his
achievements and potential.

By amendment at  Exhibit  H,  applicant  requests  the  PRF  be  voided  and
replaced with the reaccomplished PRF he provides.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The CY99A central lieutenant colonel selection board results are unjust  due
to three factors: improper  assignment  at  the  National  Air  Intelligence
Center  (NAIC)  through  an  abuse  of  the  personnel  system   by   senior
leadership;  an  unfair  performance  assessment  based  upon  career  field
prejudice rather than job performance; and a failure  to  include  pertinent
information on his PRF.

As a major in the developmental engineering career field, he was  improperly
assigned to NAIC in a captain’s billet  to  circumvent  Air  Force  engineer
entitlement limits.  Senior leadership failed in the duty to the  Air  Force
to properly identify all officers with the demonstrated ability to serve  in
the next grade, but instead took action only  to  ensure  the  promotion  of
fellow intelligence officers.  Their indifferent and  lethargic  efforts  on
behalf of non-intelligence officers were not based  upon  an  assessment  of
each individual officer’s potential, but was a group assessment  based  upon
stereotyping in clear violation of Air Force personnel directives.

When he reported to NAIC in June 1996 and began working  in  the  Integrated
Air Defense System (IADS) his duty title was Chief of European and  American
IADS Analysis, but it was instantly apparent this  was  not  an  appropriate
level of responsibility for a major.  He raised the issue  with  his  branch
chief who admitted the  job  was  intended  for  a  captain,  but  since  no
captains had volunteered, they had reclassified the position  as  a  major’s
billet  hoping  a  senior  captain  would  then  be  enticed  to  volunteer.
However, when no captain volunteered, AFPC then volunteered  a  major.   The
branch chief indicated that this was  done  to  circumvent  the  entitlement
limits; engineer captain billets at the time were filled at  a  50  percent,
whereas major billets were filled at 90-100  percent.   For  these  reasons,
which have nothing to do with job requirements and having everything  to  do
with falsely obtaining scarce personnel resources, he was assigned  to  NAIC
in what should have been a captain’s billet.  This abuse  of  the  personnel
system placed him in a very disadvantageous position to compete fairly  with
his peers.  He went from the responsible position of deputy program  manager
to the less responsible position of analyst not because  he  had  failed  to
perform at a high level as a program manager, but  because  NAIC  leadership
abused the personnel system to obtain an unfair allocation of engineers.

The consistent non-selection  of  non-intel  majors  is  indicative  not  of
poorly performing officers, but either the fact  that  positions  themselves
do not possess sufficient inherent levels of responsibility to compete on  a
level playing field with other majors throughout  the  Air  Force,  or  NAIC
does not prepare a competitive promotion package in the form of the  Officer
Performance Report (OPR) and the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).   What
is unconscionable is the fact the NAIC commanders never took  responsibility
for improving upon the board  results  of  the  non-intel  officers.   There
should  have  been  aggressive  fact-finding,  which  would  have  uncovered
improper job responsibility  levels,  unenthusiastic  OPRs,  and  an  overly
restrictive PRF writing process.

When he did not receive a DP, his PRF was not modified  to  indicate  “if  I
had one more DP I would have given this officer the DP.”  Inclusion of  this
statement would have been a more accurate reflection  of  truth,  and  would
have  significantly  improved  his  chances  for  selection  to   lieutenant
colonel.  He understands it is the commander’s prerogative to  include  this
statement, but it makes no sense to lobby for an officer, then  not  include
it.  High impact statements that  could  not  be  included  because  of  the
overly  restrictive  rules  at  NAIC  again  placed  him  at  a  significant
competitive disadvantage compared to other officers.  The omission of  these
statements again illustrates no effort from NAIC  leadership  on  behalf  of
its non-intel officers.

He  understands  that  in  this  competitive  environment  there  are   more
deserving officers than there are  slots.   He  is  also  aware  it  is  the
board’s judgment and not others who matter in promotion,  and  not  everyone
can be selected.  However, the circumstances of  his  tenure  at  NAIC,  the
abuse of  the  personnel  system,  the  improper  systematic  discrimination
against non-intel officers, and the submission of a PRF did  not  accurately
reflect his achievements at the CY99A lieutenant colonel selection board.

In support of his  request  applicant  provides  a  personal  statement  and
copies of his PRFs for both his major and  lieutenant  colonel  board.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the military personnel data system  (MilPDS)  indicates
the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  as  25  January
1983.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, with a
date of rank and an effective date of 6  February  1995.  He  is  currently
assigned as Chief, Advanced Launch Systems, ---- AFB, --.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel by  the  P0599A,  P0599B,  P0500A  and  P0501A  lieutenant  colonel
selection boards.  On 12 November 2002, applicant was  considered  for  the
P0502B lieutenant colonel selection board.

The following  is  a  resume  of  the  applicant's  OPR  profile  since  his
promotion to major:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                  9 May 00        MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
                 15 May 99        MS
                 15 Jan 99        MS
                 29 Apr 98        MS
                 29 Apr 97        MS
                 29 Apr 96        MS
                 29 Apr 95        MS

The applicant received an AF Form 709, Promotion  Recommendation  Form,  for
the P0599A  Selection  Board  and  received  an  overall  recommendation  of
“Promote.”  Additionally, the applicant’s OSB indicates he was  awarded  two
Meritorious Service Medals, a Defense  Meritorious  Service  Medal,  an  Air
Force Commendation Medal, a Joint Service Commendation  Medal  and  two  Air
Force Achievement Medals.  The applicant currently has an  established  date
of separation (DOS) of 30 April 2007.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPE  states  that  the
applicant has no support from his senior rater.   Despite  their  effort  to
get the applicant to provide senior rater support for his contentions,  none
has been provided.  DPPPE agrees that management level should  not  prohibit
the use of reliable information in PRFs.   However,  the  applicant  has  no
replacement PRF to consider.  Without any proposed replacement PRF,  or  the
required  recommendation  from  the  senior  rater  and   Management   Level
President,  DPPPE   cannot   recommend   favorable   consideration.    DPPPE
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPASA recommends the application be  denied.   DPASA  states  that  the
position selected for  applicant  was  a  valid  and  vacant  major’s  62E3A
position.  The applicant was fully  qualified  for  the  position.   At  the
time, NAIC was authorized  four  62E3A  majors  and  had  2  assigned.   The
applicant was a non-volunteer for the position at NAIC, but was selected  as
the most eligible and qualified officer.  DPASA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in both the AFPC/DPPPE  and  AFPC/DPASA
advisories  and  has  nothing  further  to  add.   Since  those   advisories
recommend denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.  DPPPO  evaluation  is
at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 October 2001,  applicant  requested  his  application  be  temporarily
withdrawn (see Exhibit G).

On 13 April 2002, applicant requested his case be reopened.   Applicant  now
requests that his PRF be replaced with a revised  PRF,  which  he  provides.
The basis of his request is that the  original  PRF,  which  met  the  CY99A
board, was created through a flawed process and did not  accurately  reflect
either his personal performance or future potential.

The applicant’s rebuttal with supporting statements from his  rating  chain,
including the senior rater and MLR President, is 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   In  support  of  his  contention,  the
applicant provides credible evidence from his rating chain, to  include  the
Management level Review (MLR) President, which clearly  indicates  that  his
PRF did not accurately portray their assessment of his promotion  potential.
 Given the equivocal support from the senior rater and having no  reason  to
doubt his integrity in this  matter,  we  believe  that  the  applicant  was
improperly  disadvantaged  due  to  the  exclusion  of  factual  data  which
resulted in an inaccurate  assessment  of  his  performance  and  potential.
Therefore, we recommend approval of the applicant’s request that his PRF  of
record be declared void and replaced with the reaccomplished PRF.

4.  We have no way of knowing the  impact  the  correction  to  the  records
proposed above would had on the applicant’s promotion opportunities had  his
record been correct when  presented  to  the  CY  1999A  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection  Board.   In  order  to  afford  the  applicant  full  and
complete relief and to resolve any  doubt  in  this  matter,  his  corrected
record should be referred to a Special Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that  the  Promotion  Recommendation  Form
(PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A)  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board, be, declared void and removed from his records  and
the attached reaccomplished PRF be accepted for file in its place.

      It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the
CY99A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of  the  Board  considered  this  application,  AFBCMR
Docket No. 01-00970, in Executive Session on 26  November  2002,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
      Ms. Cheryl Jacobsen, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, received 9 Apr 2001, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 Oct 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPASA, dated 26 Apr 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 11 Oct 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Oct 01.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Oct 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 02, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-00970




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

            The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year
1999A (CY99A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, be, and hereby
is, declared void and removed from his records and the attached
reaccomplished PRF be accepted for file in its place.

            It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the
CY99A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.






           JOE G. LINEBERGER

           Director

           Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
AF Form 709