RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-00070 #2
            INDEX CODE 131.01  111.01
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of  colonel  as  if  selected  by
Calendar Year 1992A (CY92A) central colonel selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  did   not   reflect   his
performance  and  potential.  His  career  path  gave  him  far   less
opportunity than his peers to get  a  three-star  indorsement  on  his
Officer Effectiveness Report (OER). There are  irregularities  in  the
Air Force’s board process and he was clearly denied due process.

The Air Force chose  not  to  award  him  with  an  earned  Air  Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM) or write a report for the  last  performance
period before his separation from active duty in 1973.  This  resulted
in exceptional achievements being left out of  his  records.  Further,
the potential for systemic  ageism  existed  in  the  Air  Force  when
official photos were included in the  selection  folders  reviewed  by
earlier selection boards; his break in service made him vulnerable  to
this bias. Additionally, his record did not have  any  three-star  OER
indorsements because his Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) tour
(1983-1985) offered only training reports (TRs) in lieu of OERs, which
were essential for promotion to colonel in the (then) Military Airlift
Command (MAC) with a “Promote” recommendation.  Plus,  it  was  AFIT’s
policy  not  to  grant  awards  or  medals  at  that  time;  if  their
Distinguished Graduate program had not been abolished, he  would  have
had that honor. Guidelines during his four-year tour (1985-1989) at HQ
Air Force Management Engineering Agency  (AFMEA)  further  denied  him
three-star indorsements.

The applicant  provides,  in  part,  statements  from  other  officers
regarding breaks in service and three-star indorsements. Also included
are statements attesting to the applicant’s professional capabilities.
The applicant’s complete submission, with over 30 attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular  Air
Force and entered extended active duty (EAD) on 7 Jun 67.  On  17  Jun
69, he tendered his resignation effective 13 Sep 72. He  indicated  he
wanted to study law and enter business and politics. On 17 Jul 69, the
commander recommended the  application  be  approved,  indicating  the
applicant appeared inalterably convinced that a  civilian  career  was
his ultimate goal. The applicant’s resignation was approved on 11  Aug
69 with an effective date of 13 Sep 72. On 7  Jul  72,  the  applicant
requested that the effective date be moved up to 12 Aug 72 so he could
return to college. This new effective date was approved on 21 Jul  72.
However, on 2 Aug 72, the applicant requested that his resignation  be
withdrawn because he now wanted to be a career officer. His request to
withdraw his resignation was approved on 13 Sep 72. On 22 Mar 73,  the
applicant requested a voluntary suspension from flying status to enter
the Medical Education Program for Air Force officers; this request was
approved on 30 Apr 73 with an effective date of 31 Jul 73. However, on
30 Apr 73, before being notified of acceptance into  the  program,  he
again tendered his resignation effective 1 Aug 73. His resignation was
accepted on 12 Jun 73. On 1 Aug 73, the applicant  was  released  from
EAD in the grade of captain and transferred to the Air Force Reserves.

On 7 Jun 79, the applicant re-entered EAD. He was nonselected for  the
grade of colonel nine times by the following central selection boards:
 CY92A (6 Jul 92), CY93A (12 Jul 93), CY94A (11 Jul 94), CY95B (10 Oct
95), CY96B (8 Jul 96), CY97B (8 Dec 97), CY98C (1 Dec  98),  CY99A  (2
Aug 99), and CY00A (17 Jul 00). The applicant  wrote  letters  to  the
CY92A and CY93A board presidents regarding his career  highlights  and
the  indorsement  level  of  his  OERs.  His  PRFs   reflect   overall
recommendations of “Promote.”

[Note: AFPC/DPPB informally advised the AFBCMR staff  via  email  that
Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) instructions to promotion  boards  in
the 1980s through 1991 did contain a paragraph about recallees/records
with a break in service. However, for whatever reason, that  paragraph
was removed in 1992 to present. The instructions  continue  to  charge
board members to give fair and equitable evaluation to  every  record.
All photos were removed from the Officer Selection Record effective  1
Jan 95, per the Air Force Chief of Staff.]

The applicant’s  performance  reports  since  2  May  91  reflect  the
following:

      PERIOD ENDING               POTENTIAL/INDORSEMENT

      *   1 May 92           Meets Standards (brigadier general)
      **  1 May 93           Meets Standards (major general)
      ***11 Apr 94           Meets Standards (brigadier general)
      #  11 Apr 95           Meets Standards (brigadier general)
      ## 11 Apr 96           Meets Standards (major general)
      ###11 Apr 97           Meets Standards (major general)
      @  11 Apr 98           Meets Standards (major general)
      @@ 11 Apr 99           Meets Standards (major general)
      @@@11 Apr 00           Meets Standards (major general)

*  Top report viewed by CY92A board
** Top report viewed by CY93A board
***Top report viewed by CY94A board
#  Top report viewed by CY95B board
## Top report viewed by CY96B board
###Top report viewed by CY97B board
@  Top report viewed by CY98C board
@@ Top report viewed by CY99A board
@@@Top report viewed by CY00A board

On 30 Jun 93,  the  applicant  requested  the  senior  rater  and  the
Management Level Evaluation Board  (MLEB)  president  to  upgrade  his
CY92A PRF from “Promote” to “Definitely Promote (DP).”  The  applicant
raised the break-in-service and OER-indorsement-level issues. However,
on 13 Jul 93, the senior rater advised he found insufficient rationale
to recommend to the MLEB president that the PRF be upgraded.

On 23 Sep 93, the applicant filed an AFBCMR appeal for  award  of  the
AFCM for the period 15 May 70-1 Aug 73. The Board granted his  request
on 16 Jun 94.  As a result, the applicant was considered by the 28 Nov
94 Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY92A and CY93A  boards  with
the AFCM included in his records. However, he was not selected to  the
grade of colonel.

In the interim, the applicant had requested the rater of the 1 May 92,
1 May 93, and 11 Apr 94 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) to confirm,
among other things, that the break in service was a primary cause  for
the applicant’s nonselection. On 26 Jan 94, the  rater  advised  that,
while it was his opinion the break in service  was  a  factor  in  the
applicant’s nonselection, it was impossible to say how negatively  it,
or other factors, may have been viewed by the selection board.

The applicant retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel on 1 Feb  01,
with 28 years and 8 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEB notes the applicant has not provided  a  new  PRF  with
supportive documentation from the senior rater  and  management  level
evaluation board as required. To change Section IV, the  senior  rater
must demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF, in the  record
of performance which substantially impacted the content of the PRF, or
in the process  by  which  the  PRF  was  crafted.  Additionally,  the
applicant must demonstrate he took corrective  actions  prior  to  the
central selection board. These requirements have not been met and  the
appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPE addresses the  applicant’s  contention  with  regard  to
receiving training reports in lieu of OERs while  attending  AFIT  and
not having the opportunity to earn a three-star indorsement. They cite
AFR 36-10, which specifically states an AF Form 475 (Training  Report)
is  prepared  by  the  School  of  Engineering,  AFIT,  for   officers
participating in the program. Further, the only grade requirement  for
the evaluator is to be serving in a grade equal to or higher than  the
ratee. Just as with current policy, all  students  attending  AFIT  at
that time received mandatory AF Form 475s to document their  training.
The applicant was not arbitrarily chosen to receive a training  report
in lieu of an OER to specifically prevent him from  getting  a  three-
star indorsement. Also, to suggest that the policy prevented him  from
being promoted is not warranted as other AFIT attendees, who  received
training reports, have been promoted to the grade of colonel.  As  for
his contention the Air Force elected not to write  a  report  for  the
last performance period before his separation, leading to the omission
of specific exceptional  achievements  from  his  records,  AFM  36-10
states that OERs will not be submitted on officers who retire,  resign
or are released. The applicant resigned his commission, which in  turn
made  him  ineligible  for  a  report  to  be  rendered.   Denial   is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO notes the other two evaluations and adds that, regarding
the applicant’s break in service from Jan 73 to Jun 79, 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. DPPPO believes the applicant  received  fair
consideration for promotion  to  colonel  by  nine  central  selection
boards. Promoting him outright would be an injustice to other officers
who have had a break in service and are not afforded direct promotion.
 The applicant’s 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.  The
applicant further alludes to ageism at  the  earlier  boards  when  an
officer’s photo was filed in  his  record.  However,  DPPPO  indicates
their role is not to substantiate whether discrimination occurred  but
rather to review the  evidence  provided  and  determine  whether  the
reports were rendered and the  process  was  followed  fairly  and  in
accordance  with  the  governing  directive.  The  applicant  has  not
provided conclusive evidence to show his record contained comments and
recommendations that were not rendered in  good  faith  by  evaluators
based on the knowledge available at the time. Without  access  to  all
the competing records and an  appreciation  of  their  content,  DPPPO
continues to believe the practice of sending  cases  to  SSBs  is  the
fairest and best practice. Direct promotion should only be  considered
in the most extraordinary circumstances where the SSB process has been
deemed to be totally unworkable. The applicant’s case clearly does not
warrant direct promotion and should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends HQ AFPC merely made sweeping  generalities  and
did not address the substance of  whether  the  subject  PRF  properly
represented his performance and performance-based potential. He  began
affirmative action for redress as soon as his rater told him his break
in service was “the” reason he was  not  promoted.  HQ  AFPC  did  not
specifically address the proven reality of institutional bias  in  his
case. For numerous Air Force promotion  boards  before  (but  not  for
his), there needed to be an explicit charge to the board  not  to  let
break-in-service bias from playing out in promotion results.  HQ  AFPC
did not dispute this.  Proven  institutional  bias  gives  a  possible
explanation for the muting of material  achievements  and  performance
that should have appeared in his PRF. HQ AFPC did not  deny  that  the
Air Force values its youthful  image  and  apparently  stipulated  the
potential for systemic ageism in not addressing the  disappearance  of
the requirement for a photograph at subsequent boards. As this type of
discrimination is unthinkable against gender or race, it should not be
tolerated against those answering a recall to duty.  While  some  AFIT
attendees may have been promoted to colonel, few ran into  the  unique
hurdles he experienced and has enumerated. The Board  should  consider
the diluting impact that the lack of an OER before retirement and  the
AFCM on subsequent records, boards and professional school  lists.  He
was the only squadron commander in his major  command  left  in  place
after non-selection despite a CINC’s direct order and in position  for
over a year and one-half. He waited  until  retirement  to  file  this
appeal because of the atmosphere of reprisal and retribution.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant direct promotion to the
grade of colonel.  The applicant contends, in part, that his  PRF  did
not reflect his performance and potential, his career  path  gave  him
less opportunity than his peers to get three-star indorsements on  his
performance  reports,  and  irregularities  in  the  Air  Force  board
process, such as alleged bias  against  breaks  in  service  and  age,
deprived him of due process and promotion. He also complains  that  he
should have received  OERs  instead  of  TRs  during  his  AFIT  tour.
However, neither the applicant’s submission, including statements from
former rating chain members, nor the available  evidence  upholds  his
assertions. The CY92A PRF senior rater explained to the applicant that
promotion boards are charged to exercise fair and impartial treatment.
He added that an individual’s perception that a break in  service  was
considered a negative factor is only  that--a  perception--and  cannot
justify  additional  consideration.   Similarly,   while   levels   of
indorsement can be construed negatively, such an estimation  is  based
on conjecture and not facts. Level of indorsement is only one  of  the
many factors in an officer’s record weighed by a promotion board.  The
senior rater concluded there was  insufficient  rationale  to  justify
rewriting/upgrading the PRF.  In his statement, the rater of the 1 May
92, 1 May 93, and 11 Apr 94 OPRs noted that while a  personnelist,  or
anyone else, may easily attribute a particular judgment to a promotion
board regarding a nonselection, this did not  signify  the  board,  in
fact, relied on the supposed judgment. While the  rater  conceded  the
break in service was a factor  in  the  applicant’s  nonselection,  he
found  it  impossible  to  determine  how  negatively  it,   and   the
applicant’s  lack  of  a  Pentagon  assignment,  were  viewed  by  the
promotion boards. These statements reflect the crux of our  conclusion
that the applicant has not made his case. As indicated  in  the  Board
Member Feedback chart the applicant provided, selection  boards  weigh
many factors in their total evaluation of an officer’s potential.  The
applicant had certain strengths and weaknesses, like all officers, and
he  has  not  shown  that  he  was  denied  full  and  fair  promotion
consideration by the nine selection boards that reviewed his  records.
We would also point out to the applicant  that  he  shares  a  certain
amount of responsibility for his career path  in  that  his  break  in
service was completely his choice, his assignment at Scott AFB  lasted
nearly nine years, and his record reflects no Air Staff tour. However,
like the applicant, we are speculating.  In  any  event,  he  has  not
established that his record was superior to  selected  competitors  or
that the promotion boards and SSBs arbitrarily eliminated him  because
of bias. As for his argument that he should have received  performance
reports rather than TRs while he

attended AFIT, he presents no basis for granting him special treatment
as an exception to past and current policy requiring that TRs, and not
OPRs, document the  training  of  all  students  attending  AFIT.  The
applicant also has not shown that, as another exception to policy,  he
should have received an additional performance  report  prior  to  his
1973 voluntary separation. Regarding the photo issue, given  the  fact
that all officers had pictures in their jackets until  1995,  and  the
applicant still had six promotion considerations without a photograph,
we fail to see how this makes a case for discrimination. In the  final
analysis, neither the applicant nor we know conclusively  why  he  was
not selected. Further, he submits no persuasive evidence demonstrating
that he should have been promoted because his record was  superior  to
his competition, the PRFs and  performance  reports  were  erroneously
rendered, he was somehow entitled to three-star indorsements,  or  the
factors weighed by  the  nine  selection  boards  and  the  SSBs  were
inappropriate or discriminatory. We  can  understand  the  applicant’s
frustration and disappointment  in  his  repeated  nonselections,  but
promotion to colonel is extremely competitive and many  good  officers
like him are vying for a limited number of promotions. In  conclusion,
the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of  having  suffered
either an error or an injustice and, absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 8 July 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                 Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00070 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 14 May 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 14 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jun 03.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair