RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00241
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of colonel as though selected  by
the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His nonselection for promotion to the grade of colonel was the  result
of two inconsistencies present in his record.  First, the rater of his
24 Dec 98 Officer Performance Report (OPR)  convinced  the  additional
rater  to  deliberately  omit  the   statement   “Promote   ahead   of
contemporaries and recommend command.”  Second, he was unjustly  given
a  “Promote”  rather  than  a  “Definitely  Promote”  (DP)   Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF).

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, copies of his last five OPRs,  his  CY00A  PRF,  and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a captain, Reserve of the Air Force, on  2 Jun
86 and voluntarily ordered to extended active duty.  He was integrated
into the Regular Air Force on 23 Oct 87.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1989 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       1 Mar 89  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 90  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 91  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 92  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 93  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 94  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 95  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 96  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 97  Meets Standards
       1 Mar 98  Meets Standards
      24 Dec 98  Meets Standards
  #   24 Dec 99  Meets Standards


# Top Report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY00A Colonel Board.

Applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 Jan 01 and  retired  for
length of service, effective 1 Feb 01,  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  He was credited with 21 years,  4  months,  and  8  days  of
active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE indicated the applicant  did  not  provide  any  supporting
documentation proving the validity of the comments  made  in  his  OPR
were in any way questionable or an inaccurate assessment.  He also did
not provide any evidence he was not  properly  considered  during  the
Management Level Review (MLR) process.  Based on the lack of  evidence
the applicant’s 24 Dec 98 OPR and his CY00A PRF were in error or there
was an injustice, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request for
direct promotion.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO indicated that since promotion statements are  not  allowed
to be written in an OPR and command pushes are optional inputs by  the
rating chain, an error did not  exist  in  the  applicant’s  selection
record considered by the CY00A board.  Furthermore, regarding the PRF,
it is their opinion the applicant  competed  fairly  for  award  of  a
“Definitely Promote” recommendation during the MLR process.   After  a
careful review of this appeal, AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial  of  the
applicant’s request for direct  promotion.   In  addition,  since  the
applicant has not clearly demonstrated the OPR and PRF were  in  error
or unjust, they do not believe SSB is warranted.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  7
May 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility (OPRs).  We note that officers  compete  for
promotion under the whole person  concept  whereby  many  factors  are
carefully assessed by selection boards.  An officer may  be  qualified
for promotion but, 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.   No  evidence  has  been  presented  which  shows  to  our
satisfaction the applicant was not fairly and equitably considered for
promotion to the grade of colonel  by  a  duly  constituted  selection
board applying the  complete  promotion  criteria.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,
we agree with the recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale
as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain  his
burden  of  establishing  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Accordingly, 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 BC-
2004-00241 in Executive Session on 15 Jun 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. James E. Short, Member
      Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 27 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair