RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02051
            INDEX CODE:  131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of major  by  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 2003  (FY03)  Line  and  Health  Professions
Major Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not considered by  the  FY03  major's  board  because  of  inaccurate
guidance during his accession into the Air Force Reserves.  He departed  the
Regular Air Force on terminal leave on 10 Dec 02 and was  selected  to  fill
an active Reserve position and transferred to the  Reserves  on  1  Feb  03,
without a break in service.  He was told that he needed to be  part  of  the
Reserve component for at least one year before being eligible for  promotion
even though he met the time in  grade  requirement.   He  followed  up  that
conversation with the Reserve Affairs office and was told  the  same  thing.
When he accepted his current position he offered to  change  his  separation
date but was told it was  not  necessary  since  he  was  told  he  was  not
eligible to meet the February promotion board.  He later discovered that  he
was eligible for the February board and did not meet the  board  because  he
did not get a package into the board before  the  deadline.   Had  he  known
that he was eligible, he would have asked to transition to the  Reserves  in
December.  His rater and senior rater agree that if  they  had  the  correct
information they would have immediately pulled him and recommended  him  for
promotion.

In support of his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  a
statement from his senior rater,  a  memorandum  from  the  Reserve  Affairs
office, a Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF).   His  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects  that  the  applicant
was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 20  Jun  93.
He was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on  7  Jun  94.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 2 Jan 98.  Applicant was released  from
active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve on 2 Feb 03.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends  denial.   DPB  states  that  nominations  for  position
vacancy consideration by the FY03 Major Selection Board were due at HQ  ARPC
not later than 20 Dec 02.  The applicant was still  carried  on  the  active
duty list and was not eligible for consideration by this  board.   Title  10
requires a Reserve officer to be assigned or eligible to be assigned to  the
position for which nominated.  He did not occupy a Reserve position and  was
not eligible for a Reserve assignment as he  was  still  under  active  duty
control until 2 Feb 03.  AFI 36-2504 clearly states,  "Do  not  backdate  an
assignment for a promotion."  The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that DPB does not address his concern that had he not  been
given  incorrect  guidance  he  would  have  met  all  the   timelines   and
requirements  necessary  to  meet  the  selection  board.   The  Air   Force
Instruction  used  to  counsel  him  is  not  consistent  with  ARPC  verbal
guidance.  The rule changed in December  2000  to  allow  officers  with  no
break in service between active and Reserve accession to  meet  a  promotion
board as long as they meet all other requirements.  Reserve  recruiters  and
the most recent versions  of  the  instruction  have  not  been  updated  to
reflect the change in policy.  Had he not been misinformed,  he  would  have
set his date of separation to December 2002 rather than February 2003.   His
supervisor and senior rater agree that had they known  that  he  could  have
met the February 2003 board, they  would  have  allowed  him  to  start  his
Reserve job in December and  would  have  recommended  him  for  a  position
vacancy promotion.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________


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 that would warrant  favorable  consideration
of the applicant's  appeal.   The  applicant  states  that  he  departed  on
terminal leave on 10 Dec 02 and was discharged from active duty effective  3
Feb 03.  While on terminal leave he was selected to fill an  active  Reserve
position.  He contends that he was misled to believe that  in  order  to  be
eligible for promotion consideration by the February 2003  selection  board,
he must have completed one year on the Reserve list.   He  further  contends
that had he received the correct information he would have changed his  date
of separation from February 2003 to December 2002 in order to be  facilitate
his assignment to  the  required  Reserve  position  so  that  he  could  be
considered for promotion by the February 2003 board.   His  contentions  are
duly noted; however, we find no evidence which  would  lead  us  to  believe
that the Reserve position he was selected to fill was vacant on 10  Dec  02.
In the absence of such evidence, we are not inclined to  favorably  consider
his request.  If the applicant were to  provide  evidence  that  would  show
that the Reserve position he was selected to fill was vacant as  of  10  Dec
02, we would be willing to reconsider his application.  In  the  absence  of
such evidence, we find no compelling basis upon which 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
02051 in Executive Session on 13 Aug 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 1 Jul 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jul 03.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair