RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00045
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  07 JULY 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year  2004B  Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Board (CBS)  based  on  the  fact  that  his
senior rater did not have an opportunity to fully consider all factors
concerning his promotion potential.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As stated in her memorandum, his senior rater was unaware of a pending
Bronze Star Medal (BSM) when she assigned a  “Promote”  recommendation
to his AF Form 709 (Promotion Recommendation).  He was  nominated  for
the BSM in January 2004; it was  received  by  the  CENTAF  Decoration
Processing Unit February 2004, and it was awarded on 3 July 2004.  His
AF Form 709 closed out in May 2004.  The senior rater stated  that  he
was in equal running with another officer  to  whom  she  did  give  a
“Definitely Promote” recommendation.  If the BSM  had  been  processed
and awarded prior to the Management Level Review it would most  likely
have been a deciding factor in his favor.  This is  further  supported
by the senior rater’s final comment on his AF Form 709, “DP  and  make
him MX/CD.”  Additionally, as indicated in his “as met”  records,  the
promotion board received a copy of his decoration citation on or after
16 July 2004.  The board convened 12 July 2004.  Under  the  rules  of
the board, his records would have been referred back to the panel  for
rescoring, however, he feels they could have been  prejudiced  by  the
fact that someone with a  BSM  would  still  receive  a  “Promote”  vs
“Definitely Promote” recommendation.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy  of  the  Promotion
Recommendation memo, a copy of memo requesting his As Met  Records,  a
copy of his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), a  copy  of  his  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), and a copy of his Board Discrepancy Report.
 Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY03A and CY04B central selection boards.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from 1990 through  2004
reflect “meets standards” on all performance factors.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  First, they do not interpret the senior
rater’s letter dated 16 December 2004  to  say  that  she  would  have
awarded the applicant a Definitely Promote (DP) on the CY04B PRF  with
knowledge that a BSM submission existed.  She only points out that she
would have liked to recommend him for the DP but instead, in  a  tough
decision, awarded it to another officer.  It does not show the BSM was
a tiebreaker that would  have  changed  her  promotion  recommendation
rating.  She does state however that even though she did not assign  a
DP, the Management Level Review (MLR), with knowledge of  the  pending
BSM, may have upgraded the promotion recommendation.  They  find  this
conclusion  to  be  unsubstantiated.   Second,  the  applicant’s   BSM
citation covering the period 24 July 2003 to 21 November 2003  was  in
fact filed in his  selection  record  and  annotated  on  his  officer
selection brief reviewed by the central board.   Therefore,  they  are
not convinced the senior rater’s letter will change  his  nonselection
status since the original board evaluated his entire officer selection
record  to  include  the   promotion   recommendation   for,   officer
performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, training  reports,
letters of evaluation, decorations, and data on the  OSB.   The  board
members  assessed  whole  person  factors  such  as  job  performance,
professional qualities, depth and breadth  of  experience,  leadership
and academic and professional military education  when  they  rendered
their  promotion  decision.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial   of
applicant’s request.

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 March 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________
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.  After reviewing the evidence  of
presented, we are not persuaded that approval of the requested  relief
is warranted.  Although the applicant makes no specific request for  a
correction to his P0504B PRF, we assume that he is  desirous  of  such
relief since the majority of his contentions pertain to that  document
and placing his record before an SSB without a correction to  the  OSR
seen by the original board would not be appropriate.  We have reviewed
the statement by the senior rater of the PRF cited  by  the  applicant
and do not find it supports a change to the  promotion  recommendation
in the cited PRF since her  statement  lacks  specificity  as  to  any
definitive impact the award of the BSM would have had on her  decision
concerning a promotion recommendation for the applicant.  Furthermore,
the applicant has not provided any evidence from the MLR president  to
support a change to the promotion recommendation he received.  We also
note the applicant’s assertion that the selection board may  not  have
had access to his BSM.  However,  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility indicates the award  was  available  to  the  selection
board.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing  the  contrary.
In view of the above, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of
the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale
as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request
that his record be considered by an SSB 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 22 June 2005, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC 2005-00045 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Dec 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 Mar 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.




                             FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                             Panel Chair