RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00260
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 AUGUST 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration with a  corrected  AF
Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) which met  the  CY01B  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The promotion recommendation and narrative section of his PRF were  produced
by a biased review panel held at his unit of  assignment  in  which  he  and
other officers did not have a fair and equal representation.  This not  only
led to the perception of  a  mini-board  at  the  senior  rater  level,  but
additionally, most of the colonels on the  review  group  were  not  in  his
chain-of-command.  In February 2002, he submitted an Inspector General  (IG)
complaint against the commander regarding the process he used  to  determine
promotion recommendations.  The IG stated  that  the  manner  in  which  the
group carried out its assigned review was in accordance with  the  governing
AFI and there was insufficient information for further  investigation.   The
PRF is the most important element in  an  officer’s  selection  record  when
meeting a promotion board.  He firmly believes his  career  progression  was
halted by a biased DP-award process.

In support of his request applicant provides a personal  statement;  a  copy
of the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel  Promotion  Board  Results  with  associated
correspondence  and  copies  of  correspondence  from  the  Senior  Official
Inquiries Inspector General’s  Office.   The  applicant’s  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date as  28
May 1986.  He is currently serving on active duty in the  grade  of  major,
with a date of rank of 1 January 1998.

The applicant’s OSB contains AF Forms  707B,  Officer  Performance  Reports
(OPRs) beginning with the rating period 18 June 1998 and ending on 8  April
2004 with overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”   The  applicant  currently
has an established date of separation (DOS) of 31 May 2006.

The applicant has four nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel  by
the CY01B (5 Nov 01) (P0501B); CY02B (12 Nov 02) (P0502B); CY03A (8 Jul 03)
(P0503A);  and  CY04B  (12  Jul  04)  (P0504A)  lieutenant  colonel   CSBs.
Applicant did not file an appeal  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

Pursuant to a Inspector  General  (IG)  complaint  filed  by  the  applicant
containing an allegation that his  commander  wrongfully  violated  AFI  36-
2401, para 8.1.4.1.4, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation  Systems,  by  holding
an improper promotion screening board to determine Definitely  Promote  (DP)
Recommendation allocations for the CY  2001B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Promotion
Board.  A complaint analysis was conducted by an investigating officer  (IO)
appointed  by  the  Office  of  the  Inspector  General,   Senior   Official
Inquiries.  In a report approved by the Inspector General on 25 March  2002,
the IO concluded that the applicant’s allegation  did  not  warrant  further
investigation.  The IO did not find prima facie evidence that the  commander
wrongfully violated AFI 36-2401, by holding an improper promotion  screening
board to determine DP recommendation allocations for the CY2001B  Lieutenant
Colonel Promotion board and that, as the senior rater, the  commander  alone
made that determination.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommends the application be denied.   DPPPE  states  that  the
Office  of  the  Inspector  General,  Senior  Official   Inquiries   Branch,
concluded that the available evidence did not  indicate  any  wrongdoing  or
misconduct.   Therefore,  DPPPE  states  there   is   no   basis   for   SSB
consideration.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that the advisory does not explain why the PRF  process
was not in violation of AFI 36-2406.  He firmly believes that  officers  who
had direct representation by the group of colonels at  Maxwell  AFB  had  an
advantage  over  those  officers  without  representation.   The   applicant
believes  that  the   AFPC/DPPPEB   statement   regarding   his   subsequent
nonselections were an attempt to suggest that his primary  non-selection  to
lieutenant colonel was validated by subsequent promotion boards.   He  finds
the  inclusion  of  this  information  not  relevant  to  his  appeal.   The
applicant’s letter is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/JAA recommends the application be denied.   JAA  states  the  applicant
did not provide evidence that his or any other  officer’s  PRF  was  scored,
rated, ranked, or tallied in violation of AFI  36-2406.   In  addition,  JAA
states the applicant  did  not  meet  the  burden  of  providing  sufficient
evidence of any connection or bias by the group review and its  actions  and
the award of DP promotion recommendations for officers assigned  to  Maxwell
Air Force Base.  The USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees with the JAA evaluation and believes he has  shown  that
supervisors not in his  chain-of-command  had  influence  on  his  PRF.   He
provided data and statistics that clearly showed a  disparity  in  the  “DP”
recommendations awarded.  The applicant’s letter is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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  record,
we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.   We  note  the  applicant’s  contention   that   the   promotion
recommendation and narrative section of his  Promotion  Recommendation  Form
(PRF) was written by a biased review panel;  however,  other  than  his  own
assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that would lead us  to
believe the contested PRF is technically flawed or the  information  in  the
report, as prepared, was based on inappropriate  factors  or  matters  other
than the applicant’s duty  performance.   The  applicant’s  complaints  were
investigated by  the  Air  Force  Inspector  General’s  Office  and  it  was
determined the allegations did not  warrant  further  investigation.   Other
than his own assertions, the applicant has provided  no  evidence  that  was
unavailable during the investigation of his complaint or lead us to  believe
the approved findings of the Investigation Officer were flawed.  In view  of
the above, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as  the  basis
for our decision to not favorably consider the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________

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,  AFBCMR
Docket No. 01-03283, in Executive Session on 19 July  2005  and  12  October
2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
            Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
            Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and
                SAF/IGS Senior Official Complaint Analysis
                (withdrawn).
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 4 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 22 Jul 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Aug 05.





                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair