RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00938
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  GUY J. FERRANTE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel with a date
when  such  promotion  would  have  been  effective  if  he  had  been
reinstated from a Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

All of his nonselections for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel were erroneous.

He had to compete for promotion, through no fault of his own, with  an
unjustly abbreviated record.

The Central Selection  Boards  (CSBs)  and  Special  Selection  Boards
(SSBs)  that  were  conducted  to  consider  him  for  promotion  were
conducted illegally.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  counsel's  brief,
promotion board statistics, an excerpt of a court hearing  transcript,
a  talking  paper  on  selected  benchmark  records,  a   Freedom   of
Information (FOIA) response, a declaration from a retired officer, and
an excerpt of a Memorandum of Points and  Authorities  in  Support  of
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary  Judgment
and Reply to Plaintiff's Response to  Defendant's  Renewed  Motion  to
Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force,
on 29 Nov 79 and was voluntarily ordered to extended  active  duty  on
that date.  Applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 Aug  99  and
retired, effective 1 Sep 99, in the grade of major.  He  was  credited
with 20 years, 2 months, and 10 days of active duty service.

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  1989
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       1 Mar 89  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 90  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 91  Meets Standards
      30 Jan 92  Meets Standards
      25 Aug 97  Report Not Available for
                 Administrative Reasons
 #     3 Apr 98  Meets Standards
##    19 Jan 99  Meets Standards

 # Top Report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year
1998B (CY98B) (1 Jun 98) Lt Col Board.

## Top Report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A  (19 Apr 99)
Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPB addressed the portions  of  the  application  pertaining  to
selection board processes.  They indicated that despite  the  verbiage
used in the 7 Jan 84  talking  paper  provided  by  the  applicant  in
support  of  his  appeal,  their  current  procedures  for   selecting
benchmark records have been unchanged over the years and are  in  full
compliance with applicable guidelines.

AFPC/DPPB stated that concerning the scoring scale, they disagree that
one low score would distort  the  overall  perception  of  a  record’s
quality.  That scoring scale is from 6 to 10 in half point increments.
 Board members are briefed to try to apply a 7.5 score to an “average”
record and to try to use  the  entire  scoring  range  throughout  the
evaluation process.  Recognizing that the  scoring  of  records  is  a
subjective process, it should come as no surprise that individuals may
have a slightly different definition of what constitutes  an  “average
record.” Additionally, history has revealed that a given board  member
may be a more liberal scorer than  other  board  members  and  have  a
higher distribution of scores; i.e., from 7 to 10.  On the other hand,
a given board member may be a more  conservative  scorer  and  have  a
distribution of scores from 6 to 9.  In either case of these  examples
a 7.5 score would not likely be the “average” record.  As long as each
board member applies their individual standard consistently throughout
the scoring process, each consideree will get  a  fair  and  equitable
evaluation.  Only when two or more board members score the same record
with a variance of two or more points, i.e., 7 and 9  or  7  and  9.5,
does  significant  disagreement  occur  and  through  discussion   the
variance is resolved; i.e., less than two points variance.

AFPC/DPPB noted  the  contention  that  the  applicant  would  not  be
promoted by the SSB if he ties a nonselect benchmark record  with  the
highest of all the scores because his score did not exceed all of  the
non-select benchmark records' scores.  They did not agree.   AFPC/DPPB
stated that because the benchmark records are very similar in quality,
it is not unusual to have some inversion in  the  benchmark  order  of
merit created by the SSB.  Whenever the inversion is of a nature  that
a nonselect benchmark record received the highest score by the SSB and
the consideree’s record received  the  same  or  even  second  highest
score, the nonselect benchmark record and the consideree’s record  are
returned to the board members  for  rescoring.   If  the  consideree’s
record scores higher than the nonselect benchmark, the consideree will
be a select.  SSB members are not informed which records are benchmark
records.

AFPC/DPPB  also  noted  the  allegation  that  the   fully   qualified
determination is neither  logically  or  mathematically  sound.   They
again did  not  agree.   AFPC/DPPB  indicated  that  after  the  board
resolves the “gray zone,” all board members become aware of the lowest
select and the  highest  nonselect  and,  as  required  by  law,  must
determine if the lowest select is fully qualified for promotion.   The
board understands all records scoring higher than  the  lowest  select
are also fully qualified.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPB evaluation, with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They  noted  that  the  applicant  was
involuntarily separated from the Air Force in Feb 92 in the  grade  of
captain after two nonselections for promotion to the grade  of  major.
However, it was later determined that his nonselections were erroneous
because his record was flawed at the  time.   Hence,  his  record  was
considered by an SSB  on  18  Nov  96  for  the  CY89A  Central  Major
Selection Board.  He was selected for promotion to the grade of major,
with a date of rank of 1 Aug 91, and was reinstated to active duty  in
Aug 97.  AFPC/DPPPO further noted that the  applicant  was  considered
and nonselected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by
SSBs for the  CY94A,  CY96C,  and  CY97C  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection  Boards.   He  was  also  considered  and  nonselected   for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY98B  and  CY99A
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

AFPC/DPPPO indicated  that  they  concur  with  the  findings  in  the
AFPC/DPPB's advisory.  According to AFPC/DPPPO, the Air Force has many
officers who, for a variety of reasons, do not follow a typical career
path.  Many of these officers progress and do very well  when  meeting
promotion boards.   Promoting  the  applicant  outright  would  be  an
injustice to other officers who have had a break in  service  and  are
not afforded direct promotion.  They believe  the  applicant  received
fair consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel  by  the  three
SSBs and the two CSBs.  Promoting the applicant outright would  be  an
injustice to other officers who have had a break in  service  and  are
not afforded direct promotion.  His situation is no more  unique  than
those officers  recalled  to  active  duty  with  breaks  in  service,
interservice transfers, and transfers from the Air  Force  Reserve  or
Guard.  They, too, have incomplete records and lack  the  breadth  and
depth that their peers have.   Granting  him  a  direct  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel would ignore the basic principle of  the  promotion
system--promotions are based on demonstrated potential  based  on  the
record of performance.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA  recommended  denial.   They  noted  the  argument  that   the
applicant was forced to compete unfairly at the three  SSBs  conducted
in 1998 because he was unable to compile or establish a record in  his
new grade of major before meeting these boards, and  agreed  with  the
assessment that meeting a lieutenant colonel board without any  record
of service in the form of evaluation reports in  the  grade  of  major
certainly made the applicant less competitive and more  likely  to  be
nonselected.  Indeed, it is not unusual for this Board to set aside in
advance up  to  two  nonselections  by  central  boards  to  the  next
promotion grade following a  member’s  retroactive  promotion—for  the
very purpose of assuring that  the  member  will  have  at  least  two
performance reports in the new grade in order to  compete  fairly  for
promotion to the next grade.  At first blush, it  might  seem  logical
here to conclude that  the  SSB  considerations  that  this  applicant
received were unfair, and thereupon conclude  that  the  Board  should
award new considerations utilizing his actual records  of  performance
as a major.  However, it is their belief that it was the applicant who
decided to request these SSBs right away and, having been apprised  of
the likelihood of what would happen, decided to go  ahead  immediately
with these boards rather than wait to construct a record as  a  major.
Although the Air Force Personnel Center  historical  files  no  longer
contain documentary evidence that the applicant was  apprised  of  the
risk of requesting these boards but nevertheless elected to do so, the
normal practice at that time was that such  notice  and  the  member’s
request be recorded and  made  a  part  of  the  file.   In  AFPC/JA's
opinion, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Air Force  is
entitled to rely on the presumption of regularity that  the  personnel
officials in question proceeded in this case in accordance  with  that
standard procedure.

AFPC/JA indicated that even if one were to assume that  the  applicant
having met the SSBs without an adequate record was unfair and  through
no fault of his own, it would not follow that he  should  be  afforded
the same  relief  as  an  officer  reinstated  from  the  TDRL;  i.e.,
advancement to the next higher grade.   That  remedy  is  specifically
provided for by Congress solely under  those  specific  circumstances;
Congress has made no such requirement for a promotion  situation  like
that in the instant case.   In  fact,  Congress  has  made  clear  its
intention that for errors like  that  alleged  here,  the  appropriate
remedy would be the convening of new SSBs which would now include  the
officer’s performance reports in the grade of  major.   As  they  have
stated on previous occasions, both Congress and DoD  have  made  clear
their intent that errors  ultimately  affecting  promotion  should  be
resolved through the use of special selection boards,  and  Air  Force
policy mirrors  that  position.   In  that  regard,  where  many  good
officers are competing for a limited number of  promotions,  only  the
best officers can be promoted.  Without access to  all  the  competing
records and an appreciation of what those records mean—an appreciation
gained from years of military experience— they continue to believe the
practice of sending cases to SSBs is the fairest  and  best  practice.
For the past (and hopefully in the future) the  AFBCMR  will  consider
direct promotion only in the most  extraordinary  circumstances  where
SSB consideration has  been  deemed  to  be  totally  unworkable.   In
AFPC/JA's view, the applicant’s case does not fall into that category.
 Thus, as a consequence, they would recommend that the most the  Board
should do if it were to determine  that  the  applicant  was  unfairly
prejudiced by his having met the SSBs in question without having first
obtained a record  of  performance  as  a  major,  is  award  new  SSB
consideration and not a direct promotion.   They  reiterate,  however,
their belief that the applicant  was  not  the  victim  of  an  unfair
practice on the part of the Air Force, and that whatever  “unfairness”
he suffered as a result of meeting the SSBs when he did was solely due
to his own actions.

AFPC/JA noted  the  allegation  that  the  SSBs  that  considered  the
applicant for promotion were conducted illegally.  In  particular,  he
alleges that the methodology used by the Air Force in conducting  SSBs
(that  a  member’s  score  must  exceed  that  of  all  the  nonselect
benchmarks and equal or exceed the score of at least one of the select
benchmarks) precluded fair consideration and  violated  the  governing
statute.  In  support  of  this  proposition,  statistics  were  cited
showing  that  the  number  of  officers   with   definitely   promote
recommendations  that  are  selected  for   promotion   by   SSBs   is
significantly lower than those with definitely promote recommendations
considered by CSBs.

According to AFPC/JA,  the  precise  same  arguments  offered  by  the
applicant’s counsel in this case were  offered  in  a  recent  lawsuit
where the plaintiff was represented by  the  same  attorney,  and  the
arguments were firmly rejected by the United States Claims Court.   In
Haselrig v. United States, No. 99-908C, 2002  U.S.  Claims  Lexis  183
(July 31, 2002), the United States Court of Federal Claims  determined
that the procedures utilized by  the  Air  Force  in  conducting  SSBs
constitute a permissible interpretation of the statute  and  a  proper
means to carry out the statutory  requirements.   In  particular,  the
Court determined that  the  methodology  used  by  the  Air  Force  in
selecting benchmark records and the scoring requirements  as  objected
to by this  applicant’s  counsel,  were  all  proper  under  both  the
statute, 10 U.S.C. 628, and the applicable Air Force  regulation,  AFI
36-250 1, paragraph 6.

With respect to  the  argument  that  the  statistical  data  suggests
unfairness on the part of the SSBs, the Court determined  that  “while
statistical data  can  raise  the  question  of  whether  or  not  SSB
procedures may be flawed, the data itself is not  dispositive  of  the
issue.  Plaintiff must identify and establish a specific flaw  in  the
procedures the SSBs used to reach its decision in order for the  court
to find the SSB procedures are inconsistent with 10 U.S.C. Section 628
and AFI 36-2501, paragraph 6.1.” Haselrig v. United States, 2002  U.S.
Claims Lexis 183, at page  17.  The  Court  refused  to  make  such  a
determination, having  decided  that  the  issue  was  nonjusticiable.
Moreover, the Court determined that the statistical data presented  by
the plaintiff was not conclusive evidence that  the  Air  Force’s  SSB
procedure failed to make a “reasonable determination” of  whether  the
plaintiff would have been promoted by the original board or failed  to
“replicate” the procedures of the original  selection  board  “to  the
maximum extent possible.”  In concluding  that  the  Air  Force’s  SSB
procedures were lawful, the Court noted that it was not  its  role  to
instruct  an  executive  agency  on  how  it  might  better  implement
congressional direction, only to determine  whether  or  not  the  Air
Force’s  procedure  as  actually   implemented   was   a   permissible
interpretation  of  both  statutory  and  regulatory   mandates.    It
determined that it was.  Suffice it to say, the  Haselrig  holding  is
dispositive of the SSB issue in this case, as this applicant’s counsel
has made the exact same arguments here that were made  in  that  case.
The Court clearly has rejected them, and the Board  should  do  so  as
well.

Finally, AFPC/JA noted the argument that challenged the Air Force  CSB
procedures as being illegal, contending that the statutory mandates in
10 U.S.C. 616 and 617 cannot be met by the panel system used  for  Air
Force promotion boards.  In support of this argument, a declaration of
a retired colonel who once sat  on  a  promotion  board  in  1991  was
provided.  This retired member states that he was essentially  unaware
of what was going on and did not know what  he  was  signing  when  he
signed the board report.  With respect to  this  declaration,  AFPC/JA
pointed out that  they  seriously  question  the  recollection  of  an
officer with respect to the details of  a  promotion  board  conducted
some 11 years ago.  Moreover,  it  hardly  seems  relevant  what  this
particular officer remembers about a  promotion  board  that  did  not
consider the applicant in the instant case.  Applicant’s  boards  were
conducted in 1998 and 1999, and the observations  of  a  member  of  a
board  that  was  held  seven  years  previous—even  if  accurate—bear
absolutely no relevance to the applicant’s boards.

Moreover, the Courts have clearly spoken to the legality  of  the  Air
Force’s panel system for conducting promotion  boards.   In  Small  v.
United States, 158 F.3d 57 (Fed. Cir.  1998),  the  Court  upheld  the
validity of the Air Force promotion system and concluded that the  Air
Force panel system complies with 10 U.S.C. 616  and  617.   The  Court
specifically noted: “a review of a selected number of  individuals  by
sub-panels who use common and identifiable criteria is efficacious and
equitable means to establish the  final  rankings  that  are  in  fact
approved by a majority of the members of the board.”  Both the  United
States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of  Appeals
for the Federal Circuit which  upheld  the  lower  court’s  ruling  in
Small, contrary to the applicant’s counsel’s  contentions,  were  both
fully aware of the Air Force’s board procedures (which were  the  same
for both the Small and this applicant’s boards) when they  made  their
decisions; those procedures were fully briefed  and  discussed  during
oral argument in the Small  litigation.   The  applicant’s  attorney’s
opinion that “the evidence” proves that the  procedures  used  in  the
applicant’s boards did not comply with either the law  or  the  courts
totally ignores the evidence of record and is utterly without merit.

For the reasons stated above,  it  was  AFPC/JA's  opinion  that  with
respect to the first issue raised by  the  applicant  challenging  his
erroneous nonselections  on  the  basis  of  an  unfairly  abbreviated
record, the Board should determine that this request is  untimely  and
should be barred under the equitable doctrine of laches.  If the Board
determines to consider this issue on the merits notwithstanding  their
recommendation, then, for the reasons explained  above,  they  believe
the Board should determine that the applicant has not proven an  error
or injustice warranting relief.  Moreover, it is  their  opinion  that
the applicant has failed to prove any error or injustice with  respect
to the procedures used by either Air Force CSBs or SSBs in considering
this or any other applicant.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  20
Sep 02 for review and response (Exhibit F).  On  21  Oct  02,  counsel
requested  that  the  applicant's  appeal  be  temporarily   withdrawn
(Exhibit G).

Counsel subsequently reviewed the advisory opinions  and  furnished  a
detailed response indicating, in part, that  the  AFPC/JA's  arguments
are red herrings because  the  timing  of  the  applicant's  SSBs  had
absolutely no bearing on the prejudicial injustice that AFPC/JA admits
the applicant suffered.  That prejudice derived  from  the  length  of
time that it took to  rectify  the  error  that  undermined  his  1992
separation, not from any meaningless option  that  the  applicant  was
allegedly afforded.  The applicant's  1999  separation  was  erroneous
because his promotion passovers to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel
were unjustly based upon an empty record that, through no fault of his
own, made him "less competitive and more likely to be nonselected."

Counsel's complete response, with attachment (letter from  applicant),
is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting corrective action regarding
the  applicant's  request  for  direct  promotion  to  the  grade   of
lieutenant colonel.

      a.  We agree with AFPC/JA that it is not unusual for this  Board
to set aside in advance up to two nonselections by central  boards  to
the next promotion grade following a  member’s  retroactive  promotion
for the very purpose of assuring that the member will  have  at  least
two performance reports in the new grade in order  to  compete  fairly
for promotion to the next grade.  However,  we  find  no  evidence  to
support the assertion by the Staff Judge  Advocate  that  it  was  the
applicant who decided to request these SSBs  right  away  and,  having
been apprised of the likelihood of what would happen,  decided  to  go
ahead immediately with these boards rather than wait  to  construct  a
record as a major.  Further, we find no evidence  that  the  applicant
insisted on being  considered  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel
before he had an opportunity to establish a record as a major.  To the
contrary, we find that the Air Force advised  him  that  he  would  be
considered for promotion for those boards he missed while he  was  not
on active duty knowing full well that his chances of  selection  would
be diminished because of a lack  of  performance  as  a  major.   More
importantly, however, as asserted by counsel, even  if  the  applicant
had been afforded the option to delay his SSBs for lieutenant colonel,
exercising it would have been  utterly  meaningless.   The  1998  SSBs
considered the applicant for retroactive promotions by the 1994,  1996
and 1997 boards that he did not meet because he was not on active duty
at those times.  Therefore, none of the records  that  he  would  have
accumulated after his 1997 reinstatement would have been available  to
any SSBs considering his record as it would have appeared  before  the
original selection boards.  In view of the  foregoing  and  since  the
original panel of this Board did not provide a provision to remove his
nonselections for lieutenant colonel until he had sufficient  time  to
build an adequate record of performance in the grade of major,  it  is
self-evident the applicant cannot compete fairly for promotion.

            b.  The Board  has  previously  asserted  in  cases  of  a
similar nature that in order to justify a Secretarial promotion, there
must be evidence the officer has suffered an error  or  an  injustice,
and there is persuasive evidence the officer's record cannot be fairly
considered by a duly constituted selection board.  After  our  further
analysis of this case, we believe there is every  reason  to  conclude
that the applicant's case is so exceptional an SSB cannot reach a fair
decision, and the extraordinary solution of a  directed  promotion  is
warranted.  Our  conclusion  in  this  matter  is  not  based  on  any
illegalities in the CSB or SSB procedures.  In fact, we  believe  that
SSBs have served the Air Force well and  are  fundamentally  fair  and
equitable.  Notwithstanding this, it is our view that there are  cases
where it is impossible for an SSB to restore equity.  This is  one  of
those  rare  cases.   As  a  result  of  the  applicant's  retroactive
promotion to the grade of major and ultimate reinstatement after  over
five years, he was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel by SSBs for the CY94A, CY96C, and CY97C boards with no  record
of performance in the grade of major.  When he was considered by  CSBs
for the CY98B and CY99A boards, he had one and two OPRs, respectively,
in his record with combined rating periods of less than a year.  Since
it is  reasonable  to  assume  that  most  individuals  competing  for
promotion, on average, have at least three times that  many  OPRs,  in
our opinion, this precluded  a  fair  comparison  of  the  applicant's
record with the other promotion eligibles.

      c.  While we can never  be  certain,  we  believe  the  evidence
indicates that a directed promotion to lieutenant colonel  is  fairer,
both  to  the  applicant  and  the  Air  Force,  than  ratifying   his
nonselections.  Since, in our view, there is no way for the system  as
presently constituted to restore equity, it  is  imperative  for  this
Board to impose the extraordinary solution of direct promotion--it  is
the only possible way to rectify  the  injustice  in  this  particular
case.  Accordingly, we recommend the applicant's direct  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel.   In  arriving  at  our  decision  to
recommend the applicant's promotion, we are keenly  aware  the  courts
have held that the Secretary and his  Boards  have  an  abiding  moral
sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the  true  nature  of  the
alleged injustice and to take steps  to  grant  thorough  and  fitting
relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  He was selected for promotion to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year  1994A  Lieutenant  Colonel   Central
Selection Board,  and  that  action  be  initiated  to  obtain  Senate
confirmation.

      b.  Upon Senate confirmation, he be promoted  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel effective and with date of rank as  though  he  had
been selected by the Calendar Year 1994A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central
Selection Board.

      c.  He was relieved from active duty on 31 Aug 99  and  retired,
effective 1 Sep 99, in the grade of lieutenant colonel, rather than in
the grade of major.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-00938 in Executive Session on 22 Jul 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 10 Apr 02, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 2 Aug 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 16 Sep 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
     Exhibit G.  Electronic Mail, dated 21 Oct 02.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Oct 02.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, counsel, dated 21 Apr 03, w/atch.





                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair








AFBCMR BC-2002-00938




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:

            a.  He was selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 1994A Lieutenant Colonel
Central Selection Board, and that action be initiated to obtain Senate
confirmation.

            b.  Upon Senate confirmation, he be promoted to the grade
of lieutenant colonel effective and with date of rank as though he had
been selected by the Calendar Year 1994A Lieutenant Colonel Central
Selection Board.

            c.  He was relieved from active duty on 31 Aug 99 and
retired, effective 1 Sep 99, in the grade of lieutenant colonel,
rather than in the grade of major.






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency