RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01430
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  ANTHONY W. WALLUK

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 AUGUST 2006
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Direct promotion to the grade of colonel, backdated  to  the  earliest
date of rank.  In addition, award of appropriate decorations that have
been improperly denied.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied promotion to the grade of colonel (O-6) in  April  2001,
2002, 2003 and 2004 because his commanders followed a program of long-
term  discrimination,  failure   to   follow   regulations,   numerous
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and  failure
to follow Air Force Core Values.  These failures of command, procedure
and discrimination resulted in his repeated denial of promotion.

The first Inspector General (IG) investigation established there  were
errors in  the  applicant’s  official  records  and  the  Air  Reserve
Personnel Center (ARPC) action verified errors in his promotion  file.
Since all of these errors cannot  be  corrected  after  the  fact,  no
Special Selection Board (SSB) will be able to give his promotion  file
the review and consideration it deserved.

The only way an SSB would be  a  true  reevaluation  of  the  original
selection board’s process would be if his records  were  corrected  to
the pristine condition that would have originally  been  presented  to
the board.  That would require correcting  the  R/R  year  and  points
earned, reaccomplishing his Officer Performance Report (OPR)  to  show
his actual  activities,  duties  and  lack  of  Performance  Feedback,
awarding decorations prior to  the  SSB  and  completing  a  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF).

He has exhausted all other avenues of  correction.   His  attempts  to
have  this   situation   corrected   resulted   in   two   flawed   IG
investigations,  conciliatory  thoughts  from  commanders  and   other
serious failures in the correction process.

In support of his request, the  applicant  submits  two  applications,
which contain counsel’s revised application, with  Brief,  applicant’s
personal statement, compact discs and additional documents  associated
with the issues cited in his contentions.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals  the  applicant’s  Total  Federal  Commissioned  Service  Date
(TFCSD) as 1 June 1977.  He was  promoted  to  the  Reserve  grade  of
lieutenant colonel, with an effective date and  date  of  rank  of  15
October 1997.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               15 May 98     Meets Standards (MS)
                9 Apr 99          MS
            #   9 Apr 00          MS
            ##  9 Apr 01          MS
            ### 9 Apr 02          MS
            ####9 Apr 03          MS
                9 Apr 04          MS

# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to colonel by the FY01 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel
Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2000.

## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to colonel by the FY02 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel
Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2001.

### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to colonel by the FY03 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel
Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2002.

#### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to colonel by the FY04 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel
Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in October 2003.

The applicant was considered and  nonselected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the  FY01  and
FY03 USAFR Line and NonLine Colonel’s Promotion Selection Boards.

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s  current  status  as  retired,  awaiting  pay,
effective 2 July 2005.  He has completed a total of 27 years, 1  month
and 1 day of satisfactory Federal service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied.  DPB states that, in
accordance with the  governing  instruction,  when  the  rater  cannot
observe the ratee personally, he  should  get  meaningful  information
from the ratee and as many sources as possible.  While it may be  true
the raters in question may not have observed  actual  performance,  it
can be assumed the applicant provided input and  the  raters  obtained
information from as many sources as possible  because  the  OPRs  were
accomplished.  OPRs are due for  placement  in  an  Officer  Selection
Record (OSR) 90 days following close-out of the report.  It was  noted
that the applicant’s OPRs from both his Category A unit assignment and
his Category E Civil Air Patrol  (CAP)  assignment  were  consistently
late to his OSR.  If a late OPR negatively impacts a selection  board,
HQ ARPC/DPB evaluates the record for SSB consideration,  provided  the
officer requests a review of his/her selection  record  and  an  error
(the late OPR) is established.  DPB indicates they did not receive any
contact from the applicant concerning nonselection and possible errors
in his record.  DPB states that feedback and PRF  preparation  do  not
depend on an  OPR  being  filed  in  an  officer’s  selection  record.
Feedback occurs approximately  midway  between  OPRs.   The  ratee  is
required to know  when  feedback  sessions  are  due  and  to  request
feedback if none is  forthcoming.   Information  contained  in  a  PRF
documents an officer’s entire career, not just the most  recent  year.
The senior rater prepares the PRF by reviewing  the  officer’s  entire
selection record plus any needed information from the rater addressing
performance since the close-out of the last OPR in the OSR.

With regard to the IG inspections, DPB indicates the IG response of 23
February  2004  reveals  the  applicant’s  other   issues   are   more
appropriately handled in  command  channels  and  he  was  provided  a
specific officer to contact or he could choose someone from his  chain
of command.  It does not appear the applicant chose to  surface  these
complaints with the individuals or organizations recommended by the HQ
AETC/IG.   SAF/IGQ  and  the  Special  Inquiries  Directorate  of  the
Department of Defense Inspector General’s office reviewed the case and
concurred that further investigation was not warranted under  10  USC,
Section 1034.  DPB states that any questions regarding the IG  results
should be addressed by the appropriate office.

As to the decorations, DPB states  that  under  normal  circumstances,
most members are evaluated for awards  and  decorations  at  permanent
change of station (PCS) or approximately every three  years.   Reserve
members do not often PCS, so the every three years  is  the  “rule-of-
thumb” used by many Reserve organizations.  An  officer  who  has  not
received recent recognition is encouraged to address this  with  their
supervisor.  Ultimately, it is the chain of command who determines who
does or does not receive recognition…it is not  automatic.   LOMs  are
afforded to colonels (O-6) only.

The applicant was considered but  nonselected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by the FY01, FY02,  FY03  and  FY04  USAFR  Line  and
NonLine Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, which convened in  October
2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively.

DPB states there were OPRs  missing  from  the  applicant’s  selection
folder.  Based on this application, DPB audited his record  and  found
the applicant’s selection folder that met the FY01  and  FY03  colonel
promotion boards did not have the appropriate OPRs filed.   Therefore,
DPB awarded SSBs in-lieu-of the FY01 and FY03 USAFR Line  and  NonLine
Colonel’s Promotion Selection Boards.

Utilizing the “whole person concept” the applicant’s record  has  been
considered  by  four  separate  selection  boards.    Based   on   his
performance during his entire career, board members have not found the
applicant as qualified for additional responsibility and promotion  as
they have found those officers selected for greater responsibility and
promotion.  However,  because  of  errors  noted  in  the  applicant’s
record, he met two SSBs in replacement of two boards.

The HQ ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  11
June 2004 for review and response (Exhibit D).

On 26 July 2004, the  applicant  requested  that  his  application  be
withdrawn.  By revised application, dated 10  February  2005,  counsel
requested that the applicant’s appeal be reopened for consideration by
the Board.
_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
His contentions are noted;  however,  in  our  opinion,  the  detailed
comments provided by  the  appropriate  Air  Force  office  adequately
address those allegations.  In this respect, we note the applicant was
provided SSB consideration based on missing OPRs  from  his  selection
folder.  We have seen no evidence showing what  attempts  he  made  to
ensure his record was complete before he met the two SSBs.  Therefore,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air  Force  office
of primary responsibility and adopt the  rationale  expressed  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his
burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  However,
should the applicant submit information demonstrating his attempts  to
have a PRF accomplished prior to the selection board in  question  and
provided he submits a PRF for inclusion in his record, the  Board  may
be willing to reconsider his appeal.   In view of the above and absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find  no  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  issue(s)   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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                  Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01430.

   Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 10 Feb 05, w/atchs, and
               28 Apr 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and IG
               Documents, withdrawn.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 4 Jun 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 04.




                                   CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY
                                   Panel Chair