RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00801
            INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B (3 December 2001) Central  Colonel
Selection Board (P0601B).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His supervisor/rater (Colonel R. D. H---), who was one  of  the  board
members for the P0601B selection board,  unfairly  scored  his  record
poorly.  He was informed by his supervisor  that  he  had  scored  his
record poorly because he did not like his [applicant’s] job  sequence.
He realizes there is no policy against his supervisor sitting  on  the
board  and  scoring  his  record.   However,  he  believes  that   his
supervisor was  unable  to  score  his  record  without  prejudice  or
partiality.

In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his  letter  to
the Secretary of the Air Force, dated 5 August 2002, with attachments,
a 29 August 2002 HQ AFPC/IG letter, his 6  September  2002  letter  to
SAF/IGQ, a 10 January 2003 SAF/IGS response, his follow-up  electronic
mail/letter  to  SAF/IG,  and  SAF/IG’s  response.   The   applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD)  is  6
June 1980.  He is currently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel, with an effective date  and  date  of  rank  of  1
August 1997.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings  subsequent
to his promotion to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

                8 Apr 98     Meets Standards (MS)
                7 Mar 99          MS
               28 Jul 99          MS
                5 Jun 00     Education/Training Report
            #   5 Jun 01          MS
            ##  5 Jun 02          MS

# Top report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to colonel by the CY01B (P0601B) Central  Colonel  Selection
Board, which convened on 3 December 2001.

## Top report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to colonel by the CY02B (P9692B) Central  Colonel  Selection
Board, which convened on 3 December 2002.

Information maintained in the Military Personnel Data System  (MilPDS)
reveals that the  applicant  currently  has  an  established  date  of
separation of 30 June 2008.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPB, recommends the application be denied.  DPPB stated  that
investigations conducted at HQ PACAF,  HQ  AFPC/IG  and  SAF/IGS  have
failed to produce evidence to support any wrongdoing or misconduct  on
the part of the board member in question.  Therefore, there appears to
be no grounds  for  reconsideration  for  promotion  via  the  Special
Selection Board (SSB) process.  The  HQ  AFPC/DPPB  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPPO, recommends the  application  be  denied  based  on  the
evidence provided and  the  recommendation  of  HQ  AFPC/DPPB.   DPPPO
reviewed the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPB evaluation and have  nothing
further to add.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.


HQ AFPC/JA, recommends the application be denied.  JA  indicated  that
the applicant has presented no proof that the actions  of  his  former
supervisor  and  other  board  members  were  improper  and  that  the
supervisor  acted  vindictively  and  without  cause  to  render   the
applicant an unfair result at  the  promotion  board.   There  are  no
established criteria for  board  members  to  determine  a  promotable
career path or promotability in general when  assessing  a  record  of
performance at a central selection board.  The only criteria  for  the
board members to utilize are  those  included  in  the  Memorandum  of
Instructions.  JA stated that there is nothing in  the  Memorandum  of
Instructions or elsewhere in the  law  or  governing  directives  that
precludes a board member from considering  the  sequence  of  jobs  in
assessing a member’s suitability for  promotion  to  the  next  higher
grade.  There is no evidence introduced by the applicant or  elsewhere
in  this  file  to  suggest  that  the  applicant’s  supervisor  acted
improperly at the board  or  used  improper  criteria  in  making  his
assessment of the applicant’s record.  In JA’s  opinion,  no  evidence
has been provided to  support  the  applicant’s  assertions  that  his
supervisor ignored his performance, that his  decision  was  based  on
whatever was  bothering  him  and  that  his  supervisor’s  focus  was
directed at destroying his career.   JA  noted  that  the  applicant’s
P0601B PRF was authored by  the  PACAF  vice  commander  and  not  the
applicant’s supervisor.  JA also noted that the applicant’s  1999  OPR
is no better with respect to stratification or any other  aspect  than
the PRF meeting the 2001 board in question.  As a consequence,  it  is
clear to JA that what the applicant perceives to be a downgraded  PRF,
as a result of the actions of his current supervisor, was  really  not
an isolated occurrence in his record, but was  essentially  consistent
with the record of performance that preceded it.  In  summary,  it  is
JA’s opinion that the applicant has failed to produce any evidence  of
an error or injustice in his record.  The claims he levied against his
supervisor  were  reviewed  by  IG  offices  at  several  levels   and
determined not to contain evidence  that  would  warrant  any  further
investigation.  JA’s review of the record reveals  that  the  criteria
applicant  claims  were  used  by  his  supervisor  in  assessing  the
applicant’s record at the central selection board, even if  true,  did
not constitute an improper basis for assessing the record or  did  not
otherwise violate any of the instructions governing the performance of
the selection board.  The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions  and  indicated  that  he
disagrees with the overall recommendations.  What his  supervisor  did
and his reason for doing so, do not make sense and amount to an unfair
evaluation at his Colonel (O-6)  In-The-Promotion  Zone  (IPZ)  board.
With regard to the IG offices responding to his inquiry, there  is  no
indication that PACAF/IG responded to his inquiry.  The response  came
from the PACAF/CV and indicated PACAF/DP conducted the review.  By the
time his package reached PACAF/IG, they indicated it had to  be  acted
on by SAF/IG because he was already slated to move  from  PACAF/SC  to
the PACAF/IG staff.  Also, although PACAF/CV indicated PACAF/DP  found
no evidence of inappropriate behavior on the part of  his  supervisor,
he  did  acknowledge  a  problem   with   the   supervisor-subordinate
relationship.  The letter from HQ AFPC/IG indicated they were  sending
his package to  SAF/IGQ  because  of  a  potential  policy  violation.
SAF/IG responded, but  they  did  not  provide  any  basis  for  their
decision.

Consider the specific sequence that his  supervisor  utilized  as  his
reasoning to grade his record poorly.   That  sequence  contained  the
assignments that would put any Line of the Air Force  Lt  Col  on  the
“best qualified” list using the “whole person” concept.  It is a  fact
that his supervisor moved him from command a year early.  By doing so,
his supervisor knew he was sending a signal about his performance  and
leadership.  He visited his supervisor three times to try  and  figure
out where the problem was with his performance--what  went  wrong  and
what he needed to do to demonstrate improvement.   On  each  occasion,
his supervisor assured him that  his  performance  was  good,  but  he
needed his expertise on the staff--he  even  made  reference  to  that
effect in his 2001 OPR.   His  supervisor’s  reason  for  grading  his
record poorly at the board was that he did not like his job  sequence;
he never mentioned anything about his job performance.

With regard to his supervisor’s offer to help get him promoted  above-
the-promotion zone (APZ), there was no credibility in his  offer.   As
to the PRF, it was indeed authored by  the  PACAF/CV  (senior  rater);
however,  it  was  drafted  by  his  supervisor.   As  his   immediate
supervisor, his input most likely weighted heavily since  the  OPR  he
wrote set the strategy  for  a  weak  bottom  line  on  the  PRF.   In
conclusion,  this  situation  cannot  be  generalized;  the   specific
sequence is at the heart of the issue.  He proved himself in the  jobs
and positions that the Air Force holds at the top of their  leadership
pyramid.  To simply  penalize  him  because  he  went  to  AWC  before
assuming command cannot be  justified,  especially  since  many  other
officers have taken the same path and were successfully promoted to O-
6.  A complete copy of this 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we  agree  with  the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  the
respective Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his
burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In  view
of the  above  and  absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 28 August 2003, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00801.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 24 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 24 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 5 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from Applicant, dated 6 Jun 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair