RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01087
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year
1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Special Selection Board (SSB) process is unable to render a fair and  an
unbiased promotion decision in his case.  Statistical analysis of  promotion
rates clearly indicates an anomaly when a member with a  Definitely  Promote
(DP) recommendation is not selected for promotion.  The promotion  selection
process is inconsistent with the design of the promotion system if a  member
is not promoted with a DP.  Since 1989  when  the  Promotion  Recommendation
Form (PRF)  was  introduced,  the  promotion  rate  of  members  with  a  DP
recommendation is  99.7%.   The  message  the  senior  rater  sends  to  the
promotion  board  is  clear  and  the  board  accepts  at  face  value   the
commander's intent.  Clearly the SSB made an  error  by  not  selecting  his
record with a DP recommendation for promotion.

The SSB procedures did not safeguard anonymity to ensure an  unbiased  score
and promotion recommendation.  The 22 Sep 03 SSB board  could  identify  his
record as the approved correction resulted  in  replacement  of  the  faulty
PRF.   The  P0599B  Central  Selection  Board  (CSB),   during   which   his
uncorrected record was initially reviewed, yielded  a  100%  promotion  rate
for  members  with  a  DP.   As  such,  the  corrected  record  was   easily
identifiable as the corrected record.

CSBs and SSBs view records with  a  DP  recommendation  differently.   If  a
member is awarded a DP recommendation following a record  correction  it  is
considered a "non-competitive" DP and does not merit the same  consideration
that a DP awarded before the CSB does.  The SSB scores  records  differently
than  the  CSB  because  the  two  processes  do  not  mirror  each   other.
Therefore, one must conclude that members considered for  promotion  by  SSB
are not afforded the same promotion consideration, as they would have  by  a
CSB.

An error that was previously corrected was put back in his  record  for  the
SSB consideration.  The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) duty  history  omitted
his upgrade to evaluator status on the 17 May 90 entry.  Evaluator  duty  is
a critical step in the rated officer's career path.   If  a  member  is  not
selected for Evaluator duty it sends a  negative  message.   The  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) approved the correction to his  military  record
on 24 Jan 01.  His corrected report was in  his  record  for  the  SSB.   He
requested an "Officer SURF" using the  AMSWEB.   The  duty  history  on  the
product is correct and he assumed the SSB would have a  correct  product  to
score.  His request for correction of his  military  records  was  based  on
this omission.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
position papers, documentation associated with previous  correction  to  his
records, documentation associated with his  ERAB  appeal,  his  OSB,  career
path information, and a SURF.  His complete  submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 19 Jul 83.   He
was progressively promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 96.  He was  considered  and  not
selected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY99B,
CY00A, CY01B,  and  CY02B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Boards.   He  was
considered and not selected for promotion by the CY99B board at  the  7  May
01 and 22 Sep 03 SSBs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO states  a  DP  recommendation  is  just
that,  a  recommendation.   CSB  or  SSB  members  are  empanelled   as   an
independent body to factor the  senior  rater's  recommendation  into  their
assessments of the officer's record.  If in their collective  evaluation  an
officer is deemed neither best nor fully qualified for promotion,  then  the
officer  will  not  be   promoted   regardless   of   the   senior   rater's
recommendation.  The PRF and its recommendation is the senior rater's  input
to the board concerning the officer's job performance.   A  selection  board
is not bound to promote an officer with a DP if the record does not  warrant
promotion.  In the view of the SSB,  his  record  as  measured  against  the
whole person concept and in comparison to the identified  benchmark  records
was  not  of  sufficient  quality  to  warrant  promotion.   Regarding   his
contention a duty title error which was previously corrected  was  put  back
in his record for the 22 Sep 03 SSB,  DPPPO  states,  through  the  ERAB  he
requested a correction to his duty title on his 30  Nov  90  OPR.   The  ERB
approved the request and the corrected report  was  filed  appropriately  in
his selection record.  There is no evidence to support that he  specifically
took action to correct the duty history reflected on the OSB  that  met  the
original board.  Therefore, the claim that the error was  put  back  in  his
record is inaccurate.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states DPPPO's statement that he was not  selected  for  promotion
four times  is  prejudicial  and  misleading.   Officers  not  selected  for
promotion in their primary zone are  seldom  selected  above  the  zone  for
promotion.  During the normal promotion process virtually 100%  of  officers
with a DP recommendation are promoted.  During  the  CY99B  board,  100%  of
officers with a DP recommendation were promoted.   Applicant  believes  that
in the opinion of the SSB he did not deserve a  DP  and  it  was  discounted
completely.  Otherwise, he would have  been  selected  for  promotion.   The
only way to get a fair result is to  hold  the  promotion  board  again  and
review all the records under the  same  time  constraints  as  the  original
board.

The Duty History on the "as met" copy of his record that  met  the  SSB  was
not correct.  He bases his statements to that effect  on  the  copy  he  was
provided with no intent to mislead  or  deceive  the  Board.   His  complete
response is at 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence an error or injustice that would warrant partial  relief  in  this
case.  In this  respect,  evidence  provided  substantiates  that  an  error
existed on the applicant's OSB prepared for the 22 Sep 03 SSB.  The  17  May
90, Assignment History entry incorrectly reflects his  duty  title  as  "EC-
C135  Instructor  Navigator"  when  it  should   have   reflected   "EC-C135
Instructor/Evaluator  Navigator."   As  a  consequence  of  the  above,  his
records were not correct at the time he was considered for promotion to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB on 22 Sep 03.   We  carefully  considered
his request that  he  be  directly  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel;  however,  after  reviewing  the  evidence  provided,  we  are  not
persuaded that direct promotion is warranted.  The  applicant's  contentions
regarding the statutory compliance of Special Selection  Boards  (SSBs)  are
duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions  sufficiently  persuasive
to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  As an  aside,  we  are
also keenly aware that the court has  recently  determined  in  Haselrig  v.
United States that the procedures utilized by the Air  Force  in  conducting
SSBs constitute a permissible interpretation of the  statute  and  a  proper
means to carry out the  statutory  requirements.   In  addition,  the  court
determined the methodology used by the Air Force in selecting the  benchmark
records and  the  scoring  requirements  were  all  proper  under  both  the
statute, 10 U.S.C. 628, and the applicable Air Force regulation,  Air  Force
Instruction  36-2501,  Officer  Promotions   and   Selective   Continuation,
paragraph 6.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary, it is our opinion that the most appropriate and fitting relief  is
to  place  his  corrected  record   before   an   SSB   for   consideration.
Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the  extent  indicated
below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the  Duty  Title,  effective  17  May
1990, be changed to reflect "EC-C135 INSTRUCTOR/EVALUATOR NAVIGATOR" on  his
Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year  1999B  (CY99B)
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

It is further recommended that his record, to include  the  above  corrected
OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  a
Special Selection Board for the CY99B board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
01087 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 04, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 3 Nov 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 19 Nov 04.



                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                             Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-01087




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Duty Title, effective
17 May 1990, be changed to reflect "EC-C135 INSTRUCTOR/EVALUATOR NAVIGATOR"
on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year 1999B
(CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

      It is further directed that his record, to include the above
corrected OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY99B Central Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board.







                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency