RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01061
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he was  continued  on  active
duty until Aug  91,  which  would  enable  him  to  obtain  a  28-year
lieutenant colonel career; or, that he was directly  promoted  to  the
grade of colonel and continued on active  duty  until  Aug  93,  which
would give him a full 30-year career.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After correcting errors in his military record, he  was  retroactively
promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel in Jun 83, he was given  a
date of rank as though selected by his original board, and as part  of
that board process, augmented into the Regular  Air  Force.   However,
because of the length of time it took to correct his records,  he  was
not able to build a record as a  lieutenant  colonel  to  compete  for
promotion to the grade of colonel.  When he was  finally  promoted  in
1983, he was already in deferred status for promotion to the grade  of
colonel, which put a cap  on  his  opportunity  for  continued  career
progression.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, documentation pertaining to the correction of  his  records
and Special  Selection  Boards  (SSB),  and  a  copy  of  his  officer
selection record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's  military  personnel   records   were   lost.    Available
documentation indicates that  the  applicant  was  commissioned  as  a
second lieutenant on 5 Nov 63.

Applicant's Officer Effectiveness  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  1972
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       7 Aug 72     9-4
       7 Aug 73     9-4
      21 Dec 73     9-4
      10 Jul 74     9-4
      27 Jun 75  Training Report
      30 Apr 76  Removed by Order of SAF
      31 Dec 76  Removed by Order of SAF
       1 Sep 77  1-2-2
      31 May 78  X-X-X
      29 Dec 78  1-1-1
      29 Dec 79  1-1-1
      25 Jul 80  1-1-1
  #   16 Dec 80  1-1-1
 ##   16 Dec 81  1-1-1
###   28 Oct 82  1-1-1


  # Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by the  Calendar  Year  1981  (CY81)
Temporary Colonel Board.

 ## Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY82 Colonel Board.

### Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY83 Colonel Board.

On 31 Mar 84, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired,
effective 1 Apr 84, in  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel.   He  was
credited with 20 years, 7 months, and 29 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They  noted  that  the  applicant  had
three nonselections to the  grade  of  colonel  by  the  CY83  Central
Colonel Board, and by SSBs for the CY81  and  CY82  Central  Temporary
Colonel Boards.  (Examiner's Note:  Only the CY81 board  was  for  the
Central  Temporary  Colonel  Boards.   The  CY82  board  was  for  the
Permanent Colonel Board).

AFPC/DPPPO indicated that the applicant  already  had  an  established
mandatory retirement date as a major when he was promoted to the grade
of lieutenant colonel in Jun 83 with a retroactive date of rank;  and,
believing that his career could be put back on track and he could  now
compete for promotion  to  the  grade  of  colonel,  he  withdrew  his
retirement.  However,  the  applicant  stated  that  senior  personnel
officials convinced him that there were no provisions  to  correct  or
set aside the long-term errors in his record  in  order  to  give  him
competitive lieutenant colonel positions.   The  applicant  was  three
times passed over for colonel, and believing that this was the end  of
his career progression, chose to retire.

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.   His  situation  was  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  of  their
peers.  Granting the applicant a direct  promotion  to  colonel  would
ignore the basic principle of  the  promotion  system--promotions  are
based  on  demonstrated  potential  resulting  from  the   record   of
performance.

Both Congress and the Department of  Defense  (DoD)  have  made  clear
their intent that when  errors  are  perceived  to  ultimately  affect
promotion, they should be addressed and resolved through  the  use  of
SSBs.  When many good officers are competing for a limited  number  of
promotions, it is extremely competitive.  Without access  to  all  the
competing records and an appreciation  of  their  content,  AFPC/DPPPO
believes the practice of sending cases to SSBs is the fairest and best
practice.  Only in the most extraordinary circumstances, should direct
promotion be considered.

In  AFPC/DPPPO's  view,  neither  direct  promotion  or  further   SSB
consideration is warranted in this case.

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

AFPC/DPPRRP recommended denial noting that the  applicant  could  have
continued on active duty until 1 Dec 91, but voluntarily  applied  for
retirement to be effective 1 Apr 84.

AFPC/DPPRRP indicated that there are no provisions  of  law  to  grant
credit  for  unserved  service,  nor  do  they  support  awarding  the
applicant credit for over nine years of unserved active duty.

According to AFPC/DPPRRP, it would be inherently unfair to change  the
applicant's retirement date to a date in the future  that  would  gain
him credit for unserved service when they cannot grant the same relief
to other officers in the same situation as the  applicant.   In  their
view, he has failed to provide evidence that  an  error  or  injustice
occurred in this case.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with  attachments,  are
at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  1
Nov 02 for review and  response  (Exhibit  E).   On  22  Nov  02,  the
applicant requested that his appeal be temporarily withdrawn  (Exhibit
F).

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  detailed
response indicating that the evidence he  has  presented  proves  that
there were errors, why they happened, and that he had no control  over
them.  The evidence also proves the advisory opinions to be  in  error
in many of their comments and findings.

According to the applicant, his career goal had always been  to  serve
on  active  duty  until  he  reached  the  mandatory  retirement  date
established by law.  When he was retroactively promoted to  lieutenant
colonel by the SSB in 1983,  he  immediately  withdrew  the  mandatory
major's retirement date that had been  established.   He  intended  to
remain until the new mandatory retirement date  as  a  result  of  his
promotion to lieutenant colonel (28 years), or if  later  promoted  to
colonel, for an additional two years.  Only the errors he has outlined
and an inability at the time by the Air Force to resolve the old  date
of rank issue, changed those plans.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice warranting corrective action.  The
applicant's  complete  submission  was  thoroughly  reviewed  and  his
contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s
assertions and the documentation provided in  support  of  his  appeal
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).

      a.  Concerning the  applicant's  request  that  his  records  be
corrected to reflect that he continued on  active  duty  until Aug 91,
which would have given him 28 years of service, the fact remains  that
he could have continued on active duty for that period  of  time,  but
did not do so because of the action he took that was  within  his  own
control; i.e. voluntarily retire.  He contends  he  took  said  action
because he believed that his three-time passovers for promotion to the
grade of colonel meant the end of  his  career  progression.   It  can
reasonably be concluded that the applicant's retroactive promotion  to
lieutenant colonel and  subsequent  considerations  for  promotion  to
colonel without  sufficient  time  to  build  an  adequate  record  of
performance as a lieutenant colonel precluded him from being  able  to
fairly compete for promotion against his peers.  Notwithstanding this,
we find no evidence that the applicant sought  any  additional  relief
from this Board at that time.  Had he done so, the  Board  could  have
afforded him some equitable form of relief.  Now, at this  late  date,
he seeks correction board action.  However, in our view, his  lack  of
due diligence regarding this matter militates against any such action.


      b.  With regard to his alternative request for direct  promotion
to colonel, we note that officers  compete  for  promotion  under  the
whole person concept whereby many factors are  carefully  assessed  by
selection boards.  In addition, an officer may be  qualified,  but  in
the judgment of a selection board--vested with discretionary authority
to make the  selections--may  not  be  the  best  qualified  of  those
available for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Promotion to
the grade of colonel is very competitive and  the  applicant  has  not
provided persuasive evidence that he  would  have  been  selected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel even if he had  followed  a  typical
career path and had the opportunity to build a record  of  performance
as a lieutenant colonel.

      c.  In view of the foregoing, and in the  absence  of  clear-cut
evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the OPRs
and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice.   Accordingly,  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 BC-
2002-01061 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia Kelly, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 4 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 30 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Nov 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Nov 02.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 3 Apr 03, w/atchs.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair