RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC 2003-00356
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXX                            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be changed to reflect his promotion to the grade of colonel  (O-
6) with his peers.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His referral OPR closing 30 April 1995 and the subsequent  removal  of  that
OPR by the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records (AFBCMR)  was
a “poison pill” that doomed his potential for promotion.

In support of his application, the applicant provides  a  copy  of  AFSOC/CV
letter dated 16 July 2002; a copy of AFBCMR letter dated 17 April 1997  with
attachments; a copy of his AF Form 724A,  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance
Feedback Worksheet; a copy of his AF Form 709, Promotion  Recommendation;  a
copy of Memo for Record dated 19 September 1995; and copies of  his  officer
evaluation history.  The applicant’s complete submission, with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant graduated from the Air  Force  Academy  and  was  appointed  a
second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force on 2 June 1976.  He was  a  rated
officer who was progressively promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel (O-
5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1992.  The following is  a
resume of his Officer Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  while  serving  in  that
grade:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL RATING

       21 Oct 1992                  Meets Standards (MS)
       21 Oct 1993                            MS
       31 Jul 1994                            MS
    * 30 Apr 1995                         AF Form 77
       30 Apr 1996                            MS
       15 Nov 1996                            MS
    #  3 Sep 1997                             MS
        4 Jun 1998                            MS

NOTE:  * - Report removed from the record on 6 May 1997 based
           on the favorable consideration of the applicant’s
           appeal by the AFBCMR.

       # - Top report on file at the CY97B Central Colonel
           Selection Board, which convened on 8 December 1997.

Pursuant to his 16  June  1998  application,  the  applicant  was  honorably
relieved from active duty  on  31  October  1998  and  voluntarily  retired,
effective 1 November 1998.  He had served 22 years, 4 months,  and  29  days
on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of direct promotion consideration due  to  lack
of merit.  DPPPO states the application was not filed in  a  timely  manner.
The applicant had one nonselection to the grade of Colonel by the  CY97B  (8
Dec 97) (P0697B) central colonel selection board.  DPPO stated that  in  the
past, and hopefully in the future, the Board would consider  promotion  only
in the most extraordinary circumstances  where  a  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) has been deemed to be totally unworkable.  It is DPPPO’s opinion  that
the applicant’s record clearly does not warrant direct promotion,  nor  does
it warrant further SSB consideration.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant claims the DPPPO’s opinion does  not  address  the  specific
basis for his request for redress based on a  belief  that  the  promotion
board’s scoring of his promotion folder was unduly biased by  the  removed
OPR.  He states the advisory opinion does not address  his  allegation  of
injustice nor does  it  provide  the  required  instructions  of  specific
corrective actions to be taken should the  Board  grant  the  application.
The applicant’s review is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  Based on a previous  application,  this
Board removed  a  performance  report  from  applicant’s  records.   He  now
contents that this was  a  “poison  pill”  that  doomed  his  potential  for
promotion.  We disagree with  his  contention  for  the  following  reasons.
This Board has found that numerous  officers  who  have  had  a  performance
report or even several reports removed from their records have  successfully
competed for promotion.  Also, we note that selection boards use  the  whole
person concept to subjectively assess each eligible officer’s  potential  to
serve in the next higher grade.  While  an  officer  may  be  qualified  for
promotion,  in  the  judgment  of  a  selection  board,  vested   with   the
discretionary authority  to  make  the  selections,  may  not  be  the  best
qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion  vacancies.
 A Secretarial promotion, in our view, is appropriate  only  if  it  can  be
clearly  shown  that  an  individual  cannot  receive  fair  and   equitable
consideration for promotion.  In our opinion and based on the facts of  this
case, we  believe  that  the  applicant  has  received  fair  and  equitable
consideration  for  promotion   through   the   selection   board   process.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis
upon which to recommend approval of the relief requested.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 27 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Vice Chair
            Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member
            Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member





The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC  2003-00356
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 03, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 25 Apr 03.




                                  MARILYN THOMAS
                                                   Vice Chair