RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02506
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the  Fiscal  Year  2002
(FY02) Air Force Reserve  Line  and  Non-Line  Colonel  Selection  Board  be
removed from his records and he be considered  by  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel.  In the alternative,  applicant
requests that he be directly promoted to the grade of colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 1 May 2000, he left the Air Force Reserve after  completing  two  179-day
tours with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).  He was  returned  to  DIA
on a by name request.  He was told that he would have to  meet  active  duty
promotion boards while on this tour.  In August 2001, he was  told  that  he
had to meet a Reserve promotion board a week before PRFs were  due.   Nobody
knew that he was a Reservist and his  records  were  missing  or  scattered.
The PRF ranking from DIA/J2 was made based upon missing information.

In support of his request applicant provided letters he  wrote  to  ARPC/DPB
and their response to his letter; a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate  of
Release of Discharge from Active Duty;  documentation  associated  with  his
SSB consideration, documentation associated with  his  tour  recommendation,
copies of his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), a  Records  Review  Report
of Individual Personnel (RIP), his Point Credit Summary,  his  PRF,  and  an
email communication.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  25
Oct 77.  He has been progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel, having assumed that grade effective 1 May 00 and  with  a  date  of
rank of 16 Jun 94.

On 21 May 00, the applicant began serving a  limited  period  recall  active
duty tour.  At that time, officers were transferred to the active duty  list
(ADL).  The National Defense Authorization Act of 2001  (signed  30 Oct  00)
allowed Reserve officers, on a Title 10 tour of 3 years or less,  to  remain
on the Reserve active status list for  promotion  purposes.   The  applicant
was considered but not selected for promotion to the  grade  of  colonel  by
the FY02 Air Force Reserve Line and Nonline Colonel Selection Board.   After
the board, it was noted that his Participation Summary History shown on  his
Officer Selection Brief was inaccurate when  viewed  by  the  board.   As  a
result, he was granted SSB consideration for the FY02  board.   He  was  not
selected by the SSB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial.  DPB states that the  applicant  states  in  his
previous letter to DPB that if he had known the PRF  would  be  included  in
the SSB process he would have written a letter explaining his  ranking.   He
apparently believes there was something wrong with the "rack and  stack"  on
his PRF.  He received a 4/4/4 meaning his senior  rater  had  four  officers
eligible  to  meet  the  original  board,  the  senior  rater  awarded  four
definitely promote recommendations, and the applicant,  in  the  opinion  of
the senior rater was ranked fourth in that group.  The "rack and  stack"  is
the opinion of that senior  rater  which  is  used  along  with  the  entire
contents of his Officer Selection Record  as  part  of  the  "whole  person"
concept to determine the ability of an officer to serve in the  next  higher
grade.  Consideration by SSB without a PRF in his  record  would  not  be  a
fair  and  equitable  solution.   Officers  considered  without   PRFs   are
historically not promoted.  All officers with a paid position  are  required
to have a PRF.  If a PRF were not in his record, it would be obvious to  the
board members that his record was incomplete.

Selection boards have twice  chosen  to  not  recommend  the  applicant  for
promotion.  There was missing information at the  original  selection  board
and this was remedied by the SSB in August 2002.  He has received  fair  and
equitable consideration for promotion to the next higher grade and there  is
no evidence of an error or injustice to the applicant.  The  DPB  evaluation
is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant made several points that were not addressed in the evaluation  and
the analysis of the factors surrounding his case.  His complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  a  thorough  review   of   the
documentation provided in support of his appeal we find no  evidence  of  an
error  in  this  case  and  we  are  not  persuaded  by  his  uncorroborated
assertions that he has been the victim of an injustice.   Evidence  has  not
been presented which would lead us to believe that there were any errors  or
improprieties in his promotion  recommendation  process;  or,  that  he  was
denied the opportunity to compete successfully for promotion on a  fair  and
equitable basis.  Therefore, we agree with the  opinion  and  recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim
of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC2003-
02506 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael Maglio, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 8 Aug 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 03.




                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS, Jr.
                                   Panel Chair