RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01665
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY01A  Major  Board
be revised to reflect his record of performance and that  he  be  considered
for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for
the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Major Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His official records place him in the top 5-10% of all officers.  Yet,  with
a 90% promotion rate to major Air Force wide, he was passed  over.   As  the
#1 Company Grade Officer (CGO) of  the  Year  in  the  Air  Force’s  largest
fighter operations group, he believes he  earned  a  Definite  Promote  (DP)
recommendation and an appropriate PRF narrative.  He states that  since  his
date of separation was listed on the Officer Selection Brief  (OSB)  he  did
not receive “fair and equitable” consideration from his senior rater or  the
promotion board as required by AFI 36-2501.  Thus, he was  passed  over  and
an exemplary career has been damaged.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  personal  statement,  a
non-select counseling letter, dated 27 December 2001, and letters  from  the
Commander, --- Air National Guard (ANG),  dated  8  January  2002,  AETC/CV,
dated 10 March 2002, and --- FS/CC, dated  4  January  2001,  the  contested
PRF, prepared for the CY01A Major Board, and other documentation.

_________________________________________________________________









STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question, the applicant was  serving  on  extended
active duty in the grade of captain effective and with a date of rank  (DOR)
of 29 May 1995.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the CY01A Major Selection Board, which convened on  18  June  2001.
He received a “Promote” PRF.

Applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflects his approved DOS  of  “23
September 2001” and the reason for separation as “Resignation.”

OPR profile since 1995 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 30 Jun 95        Training Report (TR)
                  6 Aug 96                   (TR)
                  6 Aug 97        Meets Standards (MS)
                  2 Apr 98                   (MS)
                  2 Apr 99                   (MS)
                  2 Apr 00                   (MS)
                #  18 Jan 01                 (MS)
                 23 Sep 01                   (MS)
                 22 Jan 02                   (MS)

#Top Report for the CY01A Board

Examiner’s Note:  AFPC advises that the  applicant’s  senior  rater  had  14
Definitely Promote (DPs) to give.  He gave 15 –  the  15th  came  from  AETC
MLR.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommended denial.  The indicated that the  applicant  contends
the PRF he received was poorly written due to  his  pending  separation  and
declination of his Test Pilot School Selection.  He provides no evidence  to
support these allegations.   The  senior  rater  (SR)  reviews  the  ratee’s
record of performance, duty qualification history  brief  (DQHB),  personnel
information file  and  unfavorable  information  file  while  preparing  the
ratee’s PRF.  The ratee’s DOS is located on the DQHB and can  be  considered
but not commented on unless  the  ratee  displays  a  reluctance  to  accept
responsibility, a negative attitude toward the job, or exhibits  a  decrease
in performance that can be reasonably attributed to a pending separation  or
retirement.

The applicant provides a memorandum  of  support  from  his  promotion  non-
select  counselor.   However,  the  counselor’s  memo  is  based  solely  on
individual opinion and should not be considered  an  official  statement  of
support from AFPC.

The  applicant  did  not  obtain  the  required  support  from  his  SR  and
Management Level Review (MLR) President.  In fact, the MLR President  states
in  his  memorandum,  “I  concur  with  Brigadier  General  ------  ------‘s
assessment of your record and do not support submitting a  new  PRF  to  the
AFBCMR.”  In addition, the applicant has not provided any  documentation  or
evidence supporting his allegations.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They indicated  that  they  concur  with  HQ
AFPC/DPPPEB’s advisory and have nothing further to add.  Since the  advisory
recommends disapproval, SSB consideration is not warranted.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and states that  the  basis  for  his
appeal is two-fold.  The first basis of his appeal concerns  the  fact  that
his PRF doesn’t accurately reflect his record of performance and ability  to
assume the rank of major  in  relation  to  his  peers.   The  second  basis
concerns the lack  of  “fair  and  equitable”  consideration  given  to  his
selection folder by the promotion board since they were  aware  of  his  DOS
but unaware he was separating to the Air National Guard.  However,  both  of
the advisory opinions fail to acknowledge the second  basis  of  his  appeal
and bring into question whether or not his  appeal  package  was  thoroughly
reviewed by HQ/AFPC.

He has provided numerous official documents, many which were signed  by  his
senior rater, which placed him in the top 5-10% of  all  officers.   He  was
the --th Operations Group Company  Grade  Officer  of  the  Year  for  2000,
making him the #1 captain in his senior rater’s Operations  Group.   He  has
provided a signed letter from his senior rater  congratulating  him  on  his
prestigious selection to the Air Force’s Test Pilot School –  a  school  for
which few aviators are chosen.  He is a combat proven veteran who  has  been
placed in harms way on numerous occasions, excelled in the face  of  danger,
and was accordingly awarded two air medals for his efforts.  Not to  mention
that his OPRs demonstrate time and time again that he was selected  for  key
positions and flight ratings ahead of his peers and  more  senior  officers.
His senior rater also endorsed an OPR which states that  he  had  “unlimited
potential and was  well  ahead  of  his  peers  in  officership  and  flying
abilities – a model Air Force officer.”  These are the facts and they  bring
into question why he wasn’t given a “DP” when his senior rater gave the  top
55% of his captains DP’s?  How can the #1 captain in  the  Operations  Group
not be in the top 55% of his captains?  What purpose do our  award  programs
serve if not to identify superior performers?  Why did  the  change  in  his
assessment of his promotion potential coincide with the announcement of  his
intent to separate to the Air National  Guard?   These  are  the  facts  and
questions they  cannot  afford  to  address,  so  instead  they  make  vague
statements and rely on their rank, status, or position to  lend  credibility
to their recommendation.

He states that the second basis for his appeal, was missed by HQ AFPC,  that
the promotion  board  itself  didn’t  give  him  the  “fair  and  equitable”
consideration guaranteed him by AFP 36-2506, Paragraph 4.3 and AFI  36-2501,
Paragraph 10.3.5.2, as detailed in his appeal package.  Never mind the  fact
that he’s a rated officer with extensive experience, a top-notch  performer,
and has garnered many accolades – he was passed over for major  with  a  90%
promotion rate to major Air Force-wide.   He  contends  that  the  promotion
board saw his DOS and discounted  his  desire  for  promotion.   In  effect,
making the incorrect assumption that he was leaving for the civilian  sector
vice continuing his military career.  This allowed them to  promote  another
active duty officer.  His only hope was  for  the  board  to  recognize  the
disconnect between his PRF and his record of performance.

A counselor assigned to him by HQ AFPC reviewed his record and identified  a
profound disconnect between his record of performance and the PRF  submitted
by his senior rater.  She stated that his record was power  packed  and  one
of the best she has seen in her  11  plus  years  of  personnel  experience.
Given these facts, and the fact he had no UIF, in her expert  and  objective
opinion, she concluded his PRF was poorly written due to  his  pending  DOS.
The counselor also stated if his DOS affected his senior  rater’s  decision-
making, it would be naïve to think it didn’t affect the board members.   She
was actually surprised the  board  members  didn’t  promote  him  since,  in
comparison to other “P” records that met the  same  board,  his  record  was
clearly in “another class.”  If these facts aren’t sufficient  for  the  Air
Force to grant him an SSB, then he has no idea what would.

Applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an  injustice  warranting  partial  relief.   After
thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted with this  appeal,  we  are
persuaded that the applicant’s date  of  separation  (DOS)  on  his  officer
selection brief (OSB) constitutes an injustice.   Although,  Air  Force  and
Department of Defense (DOD) Instructions regarding officer promotions  allow
the DOS to be on the applicant’s records, the Board believes by showing  the
DOS on his OSB the CY01A Board members were alerted to  the  fact  that  the
applicant had an established DOS.  Moreover, it appears that he was  advised
during a non-select  counseling  session  by  personnel  at  the  Air  Force
Personnel Center (AFPC) that a DOS is a significant detractor  in  a  record
and may result in non-selection.  We cannot conclusively  determine  whether
or not the presence of the DOS was the  sole  reason  for  applicant’s  non-
selection for promotion by the board in question, however, we do believe  it
deprived him of fair and equitable consideration.   Therefore  we  recommend
the records be corrected as indicated below.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the promotion  recommendation  form  (PRF)
is in error or unjust.  The applicant  contends  that  the  PRF  was  poorly
written due to his pending separation and  declination  of  his  Test  Pilot
School Selection.  The statement provided from his non-select  counselor  is
noted;  however,  this  individual  was  not   responsible   for   accessing
applicant’s performance during the period in  question.   We  have  reviewed
the comments on the PRF and it appears the senior rater provided his  honest
assessment of applicant’s performance.  Furthermore,  the  Management  Level
Review (MLR) President states in his memorandum, “I  concur  with  Brigadier
General S----- T. S-----‘s assessment of your  record  and  do  not  support
submitting a new PRF to the AFBCMR.”  In view  of  the  above  findings,  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.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

5.    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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Officer  Selection  Brief
prepared for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Central Major  Selection  Board
be amended to show, as an exception to policy, the reason for  his  Date  of
Separation (DOS) was to enter  into  the  active  Reserves  via  the  Palace
Front, and that his corrected record be reconsidered for  promotion  to  the
grade of major for that selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  02-01665
in Executive Session on 22 October 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
            Mr. Mike Novel, Member
            Ms. Martha Maust, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 April 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 5 June 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, APC/DPPPO, dated 9 August 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 August 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 August 2002.




                 OLGA M. CRERAR
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 02-01665





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     , be corrected to show that the Officer Selection Brief
prepared for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Central Major Selection Board
be, and hereby is, amended to show, as an exception to policy, the reason
for his Date of Separation (DOS) was to enter into the active Reserves via
the Palace Front, and that his corrected record be reconsidered for
promotion to the grade of major for that selection board.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency