RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01633
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  as  if
selected by the Calendar Year 2001 (CY01) Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  at  a  disadvantage  to  have  his  performance  and  standing
stratified amongst his peers because his peer branch chiefs  were  all
lieutenant colonels (0-5s) and he had to  compete  for  a  “definitely
promote”  promotion  recommendation  against  eight  majors  who  were
sitting squadron commanders.

Because of the confidence his supervisor  had  in  his  abilities  and
suitability for  promotion,  he  was  selected  to  fill  a  demanding
position on the Air Staff even after his nonselection for promotion.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a letter  of  support
from his commander/supervisor,  copies  of  his  performance  feedback
forms, and a copy of a  message  providing  information  on  the  CY01
STARNOM Award nomination procedures.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of major.  He has
three nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5
Nov 01), CY02B (12 Nov 02), and CY03A (8 Jul  03)  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant  has  presented  insufficient  evidence  of  an   error   or
injustice.  The results of his CY01B promotion board were based  on  a
complete review of his complete record, documenting 15 plus  years  of
service, assessing whole  person  factors  such  as  job  performance,
professional qualities, depth and breadth of  experience,  leadership,
and education.  Although the applicant may  have  been  qualified  for
promotion, he might not have been the best qualified of other eligible
officers competing for the limited number of  promotion  vacancies  in
the  judgment  of  the  selection  board  vested  with   discretionary
authority to make such decisions.  To directly promote  the  applicant
would be unfair to all other officers who have  extremely  competitive
records but did not get promoted.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force advisory, applicant states AFPC/DPPPO
asserts that insufficient evidence was presented to indicate  probable
injustice, but does not  specifically  address  any  of  the  evidence
attached to  his  appeal.   Applicant  stresses  the  efforts  of  his
commander to get him an Air Staff  assignment  and  the  view  of  his
rater, a full colonel, that he should have been  promoted.   Applicant
indicates he is only required to show he was above the 34th percentile
in his in-the-promotion-zone year group  and  believes  AFPC/DPPPO  is
applying an incorrect  standard  of  proof  in  his  case.   Applicant
further  addresses  the  issue  of  stratification  and   AFPC/DPPPO’s
assertion the central selection board provided a complete and thorough
review of his entire record, considered the whole person and  attained
a full and  comprehensive  picture  of  his  service.   The  applicant
provides  his  view  of  the  promotion  process  and  discusses   the
importance of stratification under the current  system.   Finally  the
applicant discusses direct promotion as a viable remedy by  the  Board
in his case.

The applicant’s complete submission 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  While we  note  the  applicant’s
view that  AFPC/DPPPO  failed  to  specifically  address  any  of  the
evidence  attached  to  his  appeal,  we  agree   with   their   basic
determination that the applicant should not be  directly  promoted  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel.  The applicant argues  he  was  above
the 34th percentile within his in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) year  group
and thus should have been promoted.  However, he  was  handicapped  by
his rater’s inability to stratify his performance  due  to  his  being
assigned with an  “elite  IPZ  group  of  eight.”   As  proof  of  his
assertion, he provides a letter from his rater addressed to the  CY03A
lieutenant colonel promotion board stating, “at  best,  stratification
on his performance report was a challenge” and  that  the  applicant’s
situation  was  made  more  difficult  due  to  his  competing  for  a
“Definitely Promote” promotion recommendation among eight  majors  who
were sitting squadron commanders.  In assessing the rater’s statement,
we note no mention  that  the  applicant  was  not  fairly  rated  and
stratified based on his performance at the time.  Although  the  rater
opines the applicant deserved promotion,  he  does  not  indicate  the
applicant was not given a fair opportunity for  promotion  along  with
his contemporaries.  The applicant makes much of the efforts  expended
to get him an assignment on the Air Staff following  his  nonselection
for promotion.  We  do  not  find  anything  inconsistent  with  these
efforts and the applicant’s prior nonselection for  promotion.   After
all the rater was in a prime position to know and have  confidence  in
the applicant’s performance capabilities.  We do not  agree,  however,
he was in a position to know who was best qualified for selection  for
promotion by the promotion board.  We believe  this  determination  is
best left to a board  of  officers  empowered  by  law  to  make  such
decisions.  To determine that the promotion board has failed to fairly
carry out their mandate requires a  level  of  proof  the  applicant’s
evidence fails to meet.  We further note that while the applicant  may
have been in a  very  elite  group  regarding  stratification  of  his
performance, he was considered for  promotion  within  a  much  larger
group, which one could reasonably assume had other officers  similarly
situated.  Therefore, 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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
01633 in Executive Session on 2 November 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 31 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 4 Oct 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair