RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-01425
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXX                            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted one of the following three courses of action listed  in  order
of preference:

      1.  He receive direct promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel
with an effective date of rank as if he had been promoted by the  CY02B  (12
Nov 02) (P0502B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB); or,


      2.  He receive direct promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel
with an effective date of rank as if he had been promoted by  the  CY03A  (8
Jul 03) (P0503A) Lieutenant Colonel CSB and, thereafter,  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration by the P0502B CSB with the  following  corrections
to his record:


           a.  Void his P0502B  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  and
      replace it with his P0503A PRF.


           b.  Ensure his records identify him as a fully  qualified  611th
      Air Support Squadron Commander.


           c.  Include his Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) second oak  leaf
      cluster (2OLC), for the period 14 August 2001 to 7 August 2003.


           d.  Instruct the SSB to give special consideration to the  final
      push statement in the Rater’s comments of his OPR,  closing  30  April
      2002, as if it had a competitive push statement in terms  of  command,
      future job recommendation of greater responsibility, and  in-residence
      Professional  Military  Education  (PME)  endorsement  equal  to   the
      strongest record to which it is compared; or,


3.  He receive SSB consideration by the  P0503A  board  with  the  following
waivers to policy, mitigating conditions, and documentation:


           a.  Include his MSM (2OLC) and the electronically signed  letter
      from his rater amplifying his logic for not recommending  in-residence
      Professional Military Education (PME) or a future job on his 2003 OPR.


           b.  Instruct the SSB to give special consideration to the  final
      push statement in the Rater’s comments of his OPR,  closing  30  April
      2002, as if it had a competitive push statement in terms  of  command,
      future job recommendation of greater responsibility, and  in-residence
      Professional  Military  Education  (PME)  endorsement  equal  to   the
      strongest record to which it is compared.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustifiably relieved of command by his commander  on  10 June  2002
and deserves to be reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant  colonel.   When
considered, the Board should resolve any doubt in his favor.

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement; and  copies
of his P0502B and P0503A PRFs; MSM (2OLC) citation;  OPR  closing  30  April
2002;  Pacific  Air  Force  letter,  dated  1 December  2003,  documentation
surrounding Base Operations Services  (BOS)  Contracts;  611th  Air  Support
Group History;  electronic  correspondence  concerning  his  PRFs,  PACAF/CV
letter dated 30 May 2003 concerning results of investigation;  and  training
certificates.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is  currently
serving on active duty with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date  of
26 March 1986 and a projected date of separation  of  31  March  2006.   His
current grade is major with an effective date  and  a  date  of  rank  of  1
November 1997.

On 6  January  2003,  the  Pacific  Air  Forces  Vice  Commander  (PACAF/CV)
initiated  a  Commander  Directed  Investigation  (CDI)  to  determine   the
fairness and appropriateness of the applicant’s 10 June  2002  release  from
command.   The  Report  of  Investigation  (ROI)  dated  26  February   2003
concluded the applicant’s release from command to be fair  and  appropriate.
On 14 April 2003, the PACAF  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  CDI  to  be
legally sufficient.  On 30 May 2003, following his review  of  the  ROI  and
legal review, PACAF/CV approved the finding  that  the  applicant’s  release
from command was both fair and appropriate.

The applicant has three non-selections to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel
by the CY01B (5 Nov 01)(P0501B), the CY02B (12 Nov  02)  (P0502B),  and  the
CY03A (8 Jul 03) (P0503A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.   The
following is a resume of his OPR ratings commencing with the report  closing
30 November 1993:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      30 Nov 93 (Captain)               Meets Standards (MS)
       1 Apr 94                                MS
       1 Apr 95                                MS
       1 Apr 96                                MS
      23 Oct 96                                MS
      23 Oct 97                                MS
      26 Apr 98 (Major)                        MS
      25 Jun 99                         Training Report (TR)
      25 Jun 00                                MS
      30 Apr 01                                MS
      29 Jun 01                         Training Report (TR)
      30 Apr 02                                MS
       8 Apr 03                                MS
       8 Apr 04                                MS
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE strongly recommends denial to replace  the  applicant’s  PRF  for
the  P0502B  CSB.   DPPPE  states  that  the  applicant  has  by-passed  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB)  administrative  relief  because  he
does not have the management level  review  (MLR)  president’s  concurrence,
and  therefore  the  ERAB  would  not  consider  the  appeal.   It  is   not
appropriate to use a subsequent PRF for a board in which that  specific  PRF
is not rendered.  The respective raters had  different  assessments  at  the
time for which they  rendered  the  P0502B  PRF  with  a  “Do  Not  Promote”
recommendation  and   the   P0503A   PRF   with   a   “Definitely   Promote”
recommendation.  Additionally, the P0503A PRF contains duty information  and
job performance that cannot pertain to or  be  applied  to  the  P0502B  PRF
because the applicant changed duty locations and jobs.

DPPPE states the applicant has not provided  any  documentation  to  support
that his PRF for the P0502B CSB was submitted in error or that there was  an
error in the process in which the PRF was  crafted.   In  fact,  the  senior
rater for the P0502B PRF confirmed his intentions in an October 2003  e-mail
stating he intended for the FY02 board to know that  he  did  not  find  the
applicant  worthy  of   promotion   to   lieutenant   colonel   that   year.
Additionally, the applicant failed to obtain MLR support to change the PRF.

The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial for direct  promotion  and  SSB  consideration.
DPPPO states that since DPPPE  has  recommended  denial  to  substitute  the
applicant’s P0502B PRF  with  the  P0503A  PRF,  SSB  consideration  is  not
warranted.  DPPPO assumes the applicant is requesting a  waiver  to  include
his MSM (2OLC), awarded for the period 14 August 2001 to 7 August  2003,  in
his Officer Selection Record (OSR) that met the P0502B and P0503A boards  in
order to mitigate the negative effects of his weak  OPR,  which  covers  the
period 1 May 2001 to 30 April 2002.  However,  Air  Force  policy  does  not
allow for decorations with close out  dates  or  approval  dates  after  the
convening of the board to be filed in a member’s record.

DPPPO states that regarding the applicant’s request  for  direct  promotion,
Congress and DoD have made it  clear  their  intent  that  when  errors  are
perceived to ultimately affect  promotion,  they  should  be  addressed  and
resolved  through  the  use  of  SSBs.   It  is  DPPPO’s  opinion  that  the
applicant’s record does not warrant direct promotion, nor  does  it  warrant
further SSB consideration.

The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contests the accuracy of the Air Force advisory opinions and
trusts the Board to determine if their expert opinions remain relevant  to
his requests for direct promotion or voiding his  P0502B  PRF;  and,  what
value to place on their opinions  and  recommendations.   The  applicant’s
rebuttal is 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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the  victim  of  an
error  or  injustice.   We  note  the   applicant’s   contentions   he   was
unjustifiably  relieved  of  command  and  he  should  be  reconsidered  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel.  The available record shows the  Major  Air
Commander appointed an Investigating Officer to investigate the  applicant’s
complaints  in  this  matter.    In   his   Commander-Directed   Report   of
Investigation (ROI) provided for our review, this  officer  determined  that
the applicant’s relief from command  was  fair  and  appropriate.   The  ROI
underwent an independent legal review  and  was  found  legally  sufficient.
Upon  review,  the  Major  Air   Commander   approved   the   findings   and
recommendations of the ROI.   Other than his assertions,  we  have  seen  no
evidence by the applicant  that  would  lead  us  to  believe  the  approved
findings of the independent ROI  were  erroneous  or  unjust,  or  based  on
factors other than a fair and unbiased assessment of the facts of the  case.
 In view of the above, we have no basis to conclude that  recommendation  he
received on his P0502B PRF or the evaluations on his 30 April 2002 OPR  were
unfair or improper.  In addition, because of the closeout date  of  his  MSM
(2OLC) (7 August 2003), there is no basis to favorably consider his  request
for consideration of this award by the CY02B and  CY03A  lieutenant  colonel
selection boards.  Finally, since there is no indication  in  the  available
evidence that the applicant’s  record  of  performance  before  the  subject
selection  boards  were  erroneous  or  unjust   in   any   way,   favorable
consideration of his requests for direct promotion or SSB considerations  is
not appropriate.  Accordingly, the applicant’s requests are denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
                       Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
                       Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2004-01425:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 04, with atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Report
                 of Investigation (PACAF ROI), approved on 30 May
                 03 (Withdrawn).
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Jun 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Sep 04.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 04.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 5 Oct 04.




                                                   ROSCOE HINTON JR.
                                                   Panel Chair