RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03663
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears that the applicant is requesting that he  be  considered  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB) for the
Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Selection  Board  with  a
change in his promotion recommendation  from  “promote”  to  “definitely
promote” (DP).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an error in his Single Uniform Retrieval Form (SURF), his  senior
rater did not have accurate information when determining  his  promotion
recommendation for the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel  Selection  Board.   His
senior rater was not aware that he had completed a master’s  degree  and
Intermediate Service School (ISS).

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a statement from his senior
rater.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major.
 His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is   6 Jan 84.  A review
of his last ten Officer Performance Reports indicates overall ratings of
“meets standards.”  The applicant was considered, but not  selected  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Central Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant
is not clear on what he is seeking.  The applicant believes that if  his
senior  rater  had  accurate  information  regarding   the   applicant’s
completion of a master’s  degree  and  ISS,  he  would  have  given  him
stronger  consideration  for  a  DP  recommendation  for  promotion   or
competing him at the Management Level Review (MLR).

While the applicant has provided a letter from the senior rater  stating
the information was missing from the SURF, the senior  rater  stated  “I
cannot unequivocally say I would have competed him at  that  MLR.”   The
applicant does not provide a new promotion recommendation form (PRF) and
does not show support from the senior  rater  and/or  MLR  president  as
required.  The applicant also does not provide any evidence that he made
any attempt prior to the MLR to correct these perceived inaccuracies.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  31
Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response  has
not been received.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  After reviewing the complete evidence of record, the majority of the
Board does not find sufficient evidence  of  error  or  injustice.   The
applicant maintains that a SURF used by his senior rater  when  deciding
his promotion recommendation did not accurately reflect  the  status  of
his PME or advanced degree.  He further maintains that  had  his  senior
rater  had  accurate  information,  he   would   have   given   stronger
consideration to awarding him a “DP.”  Although the  applicant’s  senior
rater printed the SURF on 3 Sep 01, it clearly reflected that  the  data
was accurate only as of 29 May 01.  Based on the letter submitted by the
applicant from his senior rater, it appears he was  well  aware  of  the
limitation of the SURF.  Additionally, the applicant’s  contention  that
the SURF was inaccurate regarding  his  advanced  degree  is  incorrect,
since he did not complete his degree until 5 Sep 01, two days after  the
SURF was printed.  While a strong case might be made that the  applicant
would have been selected for promotion had he been awarded a  “DP,”  the
majority of the Board believes that this is not  the  central  issue  of
this case, rather, whether an error or injustice occurred during the MLR
process.  The majority  of  the  Board  believes  that  the  applicant’s
argument that he did not receive fair consideration has no  merit.   His
senior rater makes two key points that are telling in this case.  First,
he indicates that neither the applicant nor his chain of command advised
him that the applicant had completed the courses prior to or  after  the
MLR.  Secondly, he writes, “I cannot unequivocally say that I would have
competed him at that MLR as I had sitting commanders competing for those
DPs as well.”  Although not a definite statement that he would not  have
competed the applicant, the  majority  believes  his  intent  is  clear.
Finally, in cases where the Board  has  determined  that  the  applicant
deserves promotion consideration by a special selection  board,  whether
the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in insuring  their  records
were correct has been the yardstick.  The majority of the Board does not
believe that we  should  require  any  less  in  this  case.   With  the
applicant only completing PME in July 01  and  his  advanced  degree  in
September 01, we believe that it was paramount that the  applicant,  and
to some degree his chain of command, took whatever action  necessary  to
ensure  that  the  senior  rater  was  aware  of   these   late-breaking
accomplishments of the applicant.  The applicant has failed  to  provide
sufficient evidence that he took action to ensure his record was correct
or that he questioned what influenced his promote recommendation when he
received the advance copy  of  his  PRF.   The  majority  of  the  Board
believes the applicant must show that he fulfilled the  responsibilities
expected  of  any  officer  similarly  situated  being  considered   for
promotion.  Therefore, the Board majority finds no compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief requested.

______________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  BC-2002-
03663 in Executive Session on 15 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny  applicant’s  request.   Mr.
Boyd voted to grant the applicant’s request and has attached a  minority
report at Exhibit E.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 16 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Minority Report.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair

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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

      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

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


SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX



      The Applicant contends that his Senior Rater did not have all the
facts necessary to make an informed decision whether or not to compete him
for a Definitely Promote (DP) at the Management-Level Review (MLR).  This
contention has been proven to the satisfaction of the undersigned.

      While the MLR and Senior Rater actions that precede it supposedly do
not constitute a board, they collectively have the same impact as an
additional board for part of the eligible officer pool.  The Senior Rater
allocates DPs and competes the records of his next group of officers for
carry-over DPs at the MLR.  An officer who receives a DP has in excess of a
99% chance of promotion, a virtual rubber-stamp by the Central Selection
Board, while one who met this Central Selection Board with a Promote (P)
had a 39% chance.  Thus, in a de facto sense, officers with excellent and
middling records do have the advantage of meeting two “boards.”

      The applicant acknowledges the Central Selection Board had access to
all pertinent information about his career; the question is whether or not
the Central Selection Board had a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for
him that was similarly based upon accurate information.  The stakes were
extremely high; had the applicant been awarded a DP by his Senior Rater or
by the MLR, he would have been virtually certain to have been promoted.
With a P, his chance was only slightly better than one in three.  Since the
Senior Rater and MLR did not have all relevant information, the applicant
was deprived of one of the two chances his peers had, constituting an
injustice requiring redress.

      The majority opinion assumes that the inaccurate data available to the
Senior Rater and MLR were either inconsequential or the fault of the
applicant.  The opposite is true.  For the applicant’s career, the accurate
data were of momentous consequence.  The assertion of the majority that the
applicant was himself negligent for not more aggressively informing his
chain of command is at best arguable.

      a.  Virtually all officers selected for promotion by the Central Board
had advanced degrees and Intermediate Service School (ISS).  For this
reason, even though Senior Raters are not constrained to award DPs only to
officers with those qualifications, in practice Senior Raters will not
"waste" a DP on an officer who risks not being selected by the Central
Board.  Since the applicant's completion of ISS and a degree were not known
to the Senior Rater, he was not considered for a DP by him or by the MLR.
In a letter prepared by the Senior Rater in support of this appeal, he
stated he would have given stronger consideration to competing his records
at the MLR, but could not unequivocally say he would have competed him.


      b. The Senior Rater's statement acknowledges the applicant's record
was sufficiently impressive to be considered for competing at the MLR.  In
fact, the Senior Rater stresses in his letter that he thought well of the
applicant, giving him pushes for Senior Service School and fighter command.
 It is risky to speculate on the quality of an individual's record based
upon only a PRF.  Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the applicant was a
Distinguished Graduate from two AF schools, an accomplishment typical of
top-rank records.  His relatively narrow career track at squadron and wing,
on the other hand, is typical of middling records.  This plus and minus is
precisely the sort of career picture that must be weighed by a group of
senior officers.  The applicant was denied any opportunity for this review
as a direct result of his Senior Rater not having accurate information on
his completion of an advanced degree and ISS.


      c.  While admittedly the record does not reflect that the applicant
did all he could to ensure his Senior Rater was aware of his degree and ISS
completion, it is by no means clear that the Senior Rater's ignorance was
the applicant's fault.  This board was conducted against the backdrop of
updating the MILMOD personnel system.  When the Senior Rater pulled the
applicant's Single Uniform Retrieval Form (SURF) on 3 Sep 01, how could
either one of them have known that the data would be current only to 29 May
01?  This was three weeks before the applicant completed ISS, so it could
never have been correct.  The applicant could have verified his records
were correct and still not have known an old SURF would be produced four
months later.  The Senior Rater's timeline shows the SURF pulled 3 Sep 01,
the applicant's degree completion on 5 Sep 01, and the major command
suspense for PRFs on 7 Sep.  With the combination of the MILMOD debacle and
the 9/11 disaster occurring before the MLR on 25 Sep 01, it is not
surprising that the applicant's record fell through the cracks.

      Analysis of the facts of the case in the context of real-world events
creates a presumptive case of error and injustice, but selecting the
correct redress is difficult.  Granting the applicant a Special Selection
Board would do no good, since all parties agree the Central Selection Board
had the correct data.  This Board's granting a DP prior to a Special
Selection Board would be wrong, since that would be a de facto promotion
and this AFBCMR panel does not have the information to substitute its
judgment for that of a duly constituted selection board.  The only just
redress is to afford the applicant a chance to compete for a DP at a
Supplemental MLR.  This option has recently been made available and is
wholly appropriate in this instance.  If the applicant receives a DP, he
should meet a Special Selection Board.  If he does not, his appeal should
be denied.  In either case, the Air Force will have righted a wrong.

      Strongly recommend the Secretary reverse the majority view and grant
the applicant a Supplemental MLR.


                             ROBERT S. BOYD
                             Panel Chair