RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02866
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  be  supplementally  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the Fiscal Year  2003  (FY03)  Line  and  Health
Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a by-name request to fill  a  particular  position  within  the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,  Special  Operations/Low
Intensity Conflict, Special Operations and Combating  Terrorism  (OASD
(SO/LIC)) SO & CT; however, when  it  became  available,  he  was  not
assigned to the position.

In  support  of  his  requests,  the   applicant   provided   personal
statements, a supportive statement,  and  other  documents  associated
with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air  Force  Reserve  in
the grade of major, having been promoted to that grade on  1  Jan  98.
He has been credited with 16 years of satisfactory Federal service for
retirement.

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  1992
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       8 Aug 92  Meets Standards
      25 Feb 93  Meets Standards
      25 Feb 94  Meets Standards
      25 Feb 95  Meets Standards
      31 Dec 95  Meets Standards
      31 Dec 96  Meets Standards
      29 Aug 97  Meets Standards
      29 Apr 98  Meets Standards
      29 Apr 99  Meets Standards
      27 Apr 00  Meets Standards
      27 Apr 01  Meets Standards
      27 Apr 02  Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

11 WG/CCV provided an advisory indicating that based on the merits  of
this case, they believed the applicant has suffered an  injustice  and
recommends that the applicant be reconsidered by the original position
vacancy board.

A complete copy of the 11 WG/CCV evaluation is at Exhibit C.

ARPC/DPB recommended denial.  They noted that  ARPC/DPA  assigned  the
applicant to an 0-5 (lieutenant colonel) position at OASD effective  1
Oct 01.

ARPC/DPB further  noted  that  the  applicant  was  not  nominated  or
considered for promotion by  the  FY03  Line  and  Health  Professions
Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Selection Board, which convened on
24 Jun 02.  Based on his date of rank, he was  not  eligible  for  any
lieutenant colonel selection boards prior to that time.

According to ARPC/DPB, the applicant’s package  indicated  that  there
was an assumption (by both the applicant and his  rating  chain)  that
the applicant was serving in  an  authorized,  funded,  higher  graded
position at the time of the  Jun  02  board.   However,  there  is  no
indication in the  application  that  his  chain  of  command  (rater,
additional rater or senior rater) intended to nominate  the  applicant
for a position vacancy promotion.

ARPC/DPB stated that it is not within the purview of the  11th  WG/CCV
(IMA Program Manager) to either comment on or make recommendations  as
to the appropriateness of a position  vacancy  supplemental  promotion
consideration.  The Program Manager is not in the  applicant’s  rating
chain or in a position to evaluate the promotability of the  applicant
and has limited knowledge of the position vacancy  promotion  process.
Only they should comment on the suitability of  a  special  board  and
only the rating chain can actually nominate an officer for a  position
vacancy consideration.

ARPC/DPB indicated that although the applicant and  his  rating  chain
believed he occupied an authorized, funded, higher graded position  at
the time of  the  board,  there  was  no  documentation  available  to
substantiate an intent  to  nominate  the  applicant  for  a  position
vacancy promotion.  The applicant is  date  of  rank  eligible  for  a
position vacancy nomination by the FY04 board.  The senior  rater  can
nominate the applicant for that board if he/she chooses to do so.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that as a  result  of  administrative  corrections  to  his
position, he now has all the requirements to meet a  position  vacancy
board:  time in grade, a valid lieutenant colonel  position,  and  the
intent to nominate.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB again recommended denial, noting the  additional  documentary
evidence provided with the applicant’s rebuttal  response.   According
to ARPC/DPB, Brigadier General H--- was not in a position to  nominate
the applicant for a position vacancy nor was  he  in  the  applicant’s
established rating chain.  Colonel C---‘s statement that he  had  been
the applicant’s supervisor since Aug 00 did not appear to be accurate.
 The applicant’s supervisor/rater, as shown on his (OPRs) for 2001 and
2002 was Mr. T--- J. K---.  They both could not have been  the  rater.
As Mr. K--- was the rater, only he could logically comment on  whether
he had considered proposing to the senior rater that the applicant  be
nominated for  position  vacancy  consideration.   Although  Mr.  Y---
stated that he was the applicant’s senior rater during the  two  years
before the selection board  in  question,  and  that  he  intended  to
nominate the applicant for the  Jun  02  position  vacancy  board,  no
Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)   existed   to   support   that
contention.  In ARPC/DPB’s view, a letter prepared  six  months  after
the board in question and eight months after the PRF was required  for
nomination reflects hindsight, not foresight.

ARPC/DPB indicated that as stated in their  original  advisory,  there
was an assumption by both the applicant and his rating chain that  the
applicant was serving in an authorized, funded, higher graded position
at the time of the Jun 02 board.  Based on  the  assumption  that  the
applicant was in a higher graded, funded position, the senior rater of
record would prepare the PRF nominating  the  applicant  for  position
vacancy consideration.  This did not occur.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response indicating that during the  Nov-Dec  01,
the staff within OASD (---) began the process of drafting a  PRF  with
the full intent of forwarding the signed nomination  for  the  Jun  02
position vacancy board, and that his senior rater  fully  intended  to
sign the PRF and nominate him for the promotion.  However, in Jan  02,
he was advised that there was no possibility of his meeting the  board
until the issues regarding  his  position  was  resolved.   Therefore,
there was no logic in forwarding the  PRF  to  his  senior  rater  for
signature.  This was not  hindsight,  but  the  need  to  correct  the
administrative elements of the position before they could go  forward.
The position has since been corrected and he now resides  in  a  fully
funded, lieutenant colonel position with an effective  date  of  1 Oct
01.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, a majority of the Board does not find the applicant’s
assertions and the documentation presented in support  of  his  appeal
sufficient  to  convince  the  majority  that  corrective  action   is
warranted in this case.   The  available  evidence  indicates  that  a
rated, funded lieutenant colonel position was established within  OASD
(OASD (---) ---,  backdated  to  1 Oct  01,  that  the  applicant  was
assigned to  subsequent  to  the  FY03  Line  and  Health  Professions
Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Board, which convened in  Jun  02.
As a result, the applicant was not considered for a  position  vacancy
promotion by that board.  He now requests  supplemental  consideration
by the FY03 board.  However, it  appears  to  the  majority  that  the
applicant was not considered by the FY03  board  because  he  was  not
nominated for the position vacancy  promotion  even  though  both  the
applicant and his rating chain assumed at the time that he was serving
in a  funded,  higher  rated  position.   Subsequent  to  his  initial
submission, the applicant  has  provided  statements  of  support,  to
include his senior rater, indicating  that  there  was  an  intent  to
nominate him for the position  vacancy  promotion.   Nonetheless,  the
comments from the senior rater and other  supportive  statements  have
not shown to the majority's  satisfaction  that  there  was  an  clear
intent to nominate the applicant for the  position  vacancy  promotion
prior to the convening of  the  FY03  board.   It  is  the  majority's
opinion that the statements are retrospective in  nature  and  do  not
provide an appropriate basis to find  that  the  applicant  should  be
supplementally  considered  by  the  FY03  board.   Furthermore,   the
majority notes that notwithstanding the fact the establishment of  the
position was backdated, the applicant was not assigned to the position
until after the FY03 board  had  convened.   Since  the  applicant  is
eligible for a position vacancy nomination  by  the  FY04  board,  the
majority agrees with the office of primary responsibility  (OPR)  that
the senior rater can nominate the  applicant  for  that  board  if  he
chooses to do so.  In view of the foregoing, and  in  the  absence  of
clear-cut evidence to the contrary, a majority of the Board  concludes
that no basis exists to act favorably on the applicant's request.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-02866 in Executive Session on 10 Jun 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

By  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  deny  the  application.
Mr. Peterson voted to grant the appeal but did not desire to submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, 11 WG/CV, dated 10 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 4 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 28 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 1 Apr 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 17 Apr 03, w/atchs.



                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair







AFBCMR BC-2002-02866






MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.





                                           JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                           Director
                                           Air Force Review Boards
Agency