RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02312
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year  2001B  (CY01B)  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  board’s  Memorandum  of  Instructions  (MOI)  states   “do   not   give
disproportionate  weight  to   the   mere   fact   that   an   officer   has
completed…PME…the overriding factor must be job performance.”  The MOI  also
states that the board  should  not  permit  preferential  treatment  of  any
officer  or  group  of  officers.   Additionally,  the  board  violated  DOD
Directive 1320.12, which  states  it  is  DOD  policy  “to  provide  careful
consideration for all officers eligible for promotion without preference  or
partiality.”

In  support  of  his  application,  he  provided  the  MOI  and  statistical
information pertaining to select rates  for  the  subject  selection  board.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a Regular Air Force officer currently serving  on  extended
active duty in the grade of major.  His Total  Active  Federal  Commissioned
Service Date is 21 July 1986.  He has an established date of  separation  of
31 July 2006.  Applicant was considered and not selected  for  promotion  in
and above the zone to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  the  CY01B,  CY02B
and CY03A Lieutenant Colonel Line  Central  Selection  Boards.   Applicant’s
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from  1992  through  2003  reflect  meets
standards on all performance factors.

On 25 April 2002, the applicant  submitted  an  application  requesting  his
records, to include the award  of  the  Defense  Meritorious  Service  Medal
(DMSM) citation for the period 18 May 1996 to 7  June  1999,  be  considered
for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection  Board
(SSB) for  the  Calendar  Year  2001B  (CY01B)  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board.  On 27 August 2002, by a majority vote, the Board voted  to
correct the records, as recommended.  The  Board  majority’s  recommendation
was accepted, an SSB was held, and the  applicant  was  nonselected  by  the
SSB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA states that, at the outset, they note  the  applicant  does  not
allege that his own military records are in error, nor does  he  allege  any
injustice has occurred with  regard  to  his  own  promotion  consideration.
Further he fails to  state  whether  he:   completed  any  PME;  received  a
promotion recommendation of Promote (“P”), Definitely Promote (“DP”), or  Do
Not Promote (“DNP”); or is a member of any ethnic group.  Additionally,  the
applicant failed to provide his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) or  other
military records indicating whether any error  or  injustice  had  occurred.
He offers no evidence supporting his allegation the CY01 Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Board failed to follow its MOI.

The MOI in question requires the promotion  board  members  to  assess  PME,
like other whole person factors, in terms of  how  it  enhances  performance
and potential.  While the MOI does require  the  board  members  to  refrain
from giving  disproportionate  weight  to  the  fact  that  an  officer  has
completed an advanced academic degree and/or  PME,  it  certainly  does  not
require the board members to ignore PME.  The  statistics  provided  by  the
applicant suggest that, in general, those officers  who  had  not  completed
PME were not promoted at the same rate as those officers who  had  completed
PME; but he provided  no  evidence  the  promotion  board  necessarily  gave
disproportionate consideration to PME.  In fact,  the  promotion  board  had
before it, not only PME records, but each officer’s entire personnel  record
as well.  It may well be that, in general, officers who  had  completed  PME
also had overall better military records.  As the MOI notes,  completion  of
PME should  be  assessed  in  terms  of  how  it  enhances  performance  and
potential.  The enhancement of PME to performance and  potential  is  likely
to be reflected not by the mere fact that PME was completed,  but  in  other
portions of officers’ records, such as OPRs and promotion recommendations.

Similarly, other than  a  table  of  statistics,  the  applicant  offers  no
evidence the promotion  board  gave  preferential  treatment  to  women  and
minority officers.   The  MOI  requires  the  promotion  board  to  evaluate
minority and women officers, as with all officers, in a  manner  to  clearly
afford them fair and  equitable  consideration.   Nothing  provided  by  the
applicant suggests the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board  did
anything contrary to the MOI.  Likewise, the  applicant  failed  to  provide
any evidence supporting his allegation  the  promotion  board  emphasized  a
narrow career path over a broader one.  The MOI  instructs  the  board  that
the maximum quotas for various competitive categories range from 60-75%  for
IPZ (in the promotion zone) eligibles.  The MOI further notes the  board  is
not required to use  that  full  quota.   The  statistics  provided  by  the
applicant indicate the IPZ select rates for the various career fields  shown
range from 63-67%.  Again, nothing in the statistical analysis supports  the
applicant’s allegation the promotion board emphasized any career  path  over
another.

Finally, the applicant offered no evidence to  support  his  allegation  the
board  violated  DOD  Directive  1320.12  by  failing  to  provide   careful
consideration for all officers eligible for promotion without preference  or
partiality.  In sum, they see no military record or injustice for the  Board
to correct.

In their opinion, the applicant has failed to demonstrate the  existence  of
any error  or  present  facts  or  circumstances  supporting  an  injustice.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial  of  the  application.   In  reference  to  the
applicant’s contention the board instructions  gave  preferential  treatment
to minority and women officers,  DPPPO  states  these  instructions  do  not
contain any illegal  or  constitutionally  impermissible  instructions  that
gave unfair advantage  to  women  and  minorities,  nor  has  the  applicant
provided any evidence to support his contention that preferential  treatment
was given.  As to the applicant’s contention  the  board  instructions  gave
disproportionate weight  to  officers  with  a  Promote  recommendation  who
completed in-residence PME, although the statistics provided indicate  those
officers with resident PME were promoted at  a  higher  rate,  there  is  no
evidence that their selection was based  strictly  on  resident  PME  alone.
Completion of PME increases an officer’s chance of promotion, but it is  not
a prerequisite to have it completed in residence.  The  statistics  provided
also show there were some individuals promoted without  completion  of  PME.
In reference to the applicant contending the Board  instructions  emphasized
a narrow career path over a broader one.  The  applicant  has  not  provided
any evidence to show that any one career field  was  promoted  at  a  higher
rate, nor that those promoted had a specialized  versus  generalized  career
path.  DPPPO further stated he has not provided any evidence to support  his
contention that the board violated DoD Instruction  1320.12  by  failing  to
provide careful  consideration  for  all  officers  eligible  for  promotion
without preference or partiality.   Therefore,  they  find  no  evidence  or
injustice or error for the Board to correct.

A complete copy of DPPPO’s evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant believes he, a white male officer with an Advanced Degree, PME  by
seminar, a Promote  recommendation,  and  very  broad  range  of  experience
(Missile  Operations  Crewmember,  Evaluator,  and  Instructor;  Air   Force
Academy Assistant Professor; Department of Energy Program Manager; and  U.S.
Strategic Command Science and Technology Analyst), was not  given  the  same
consideration as other  groups  of  officers  for  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel by the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the  evidence  of  record,
we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error  or  that  he
has been the victim of an injustice.  His contentions  are  noted;  however,
in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air  Force
offices adequately address those  allegations.   Therefore,  we  agree  with
opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for the 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AF/JAA, dated 22 Aug 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Dec 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 8 Jan 04, w/atchs.




                             GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                             Panel Chair