RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01216
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 October 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She 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) with inclusion of  a  letter  to
the board explaining the circumstances  which  resulted  in  her  non-
completion of Air Command and Staff College (ACSC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 2004, following a suggestion she submitted to the Idea Program Data
System  regarding  Professional  Military  Education  (PME)-ACSC,  she
received a letter from Air University stating that completion of  ACSC
was not a requirement for  promotion.   Furthermore,  she  composed  a
letter to the CY04 Lieutenant Colonel promotion board  explaining  why
ACSC was not shown  in  her  records  but  was  advised  by  a  senior
Biomedical Sciences Corps (BSC) advisor not to  send  a  letter.   Her
purpose for sending a letter was so that the board members  would  not
think she did not care about completing ACSC, if indeed it was a  true
requirement.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
letter from Air University, a letter from the BSC advisory, and a copy
of her test scores.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a member of the Regular  Air  Force  serving  in  the
grade of major, with a date of rank of 1 Augtust 1999.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY04B and  the  CY05A  central  selection
boards, which convened on 12 July 2004 and 6 July 2005,  respectively.
Her established date of separation is 30 September 2012, at which time
she will be credited with more than 20 years of active duty service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO states the completion of ACSC  is  not  a  requirement  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel.  The Secretary  of  the  Air  Force’s
Memorandum of Instructions (MOI) briefed to the CY04B  board  members,
specifically instructs them to not consider academics/PME as  a  pass-
fail requirement or give it disproportionate weight.  The MOI does not
however, discount academics as a factor for board members to  consider
altogether.  In fact, the MOI  stresses  the  “whole-person  concept.”
The “whole-person concept” includes such factors as  job  performance,
professional qualities, leadership, depth and breadth  of  experience,
job   responsibility,   academic/PME,   and   specific   achievements.
Completion of advanced academic education and PME,  like  other  whole
person factors,  must  be  assessed  in  terms  of  how  they  enhance
performance and potential, as well as, contribute to the  mission  and
effectiveness of the Air Force.

They note, although the applicant alleges she was misguided in  regard
to writing a letter to the board members, she did have the opportunity
to address any matter of record concerning herself that  she  believed
was important to her consideration for promotion; however, she elected
not to inform them of the circumstances of her non-completion of ACSC.
 It was her responsibility to ensure  the  letter  was  filed  in  her
record prior to  convening  of  the  original  board,  not  after  her
nonselection for promotion.  To  this  date,  the  applicant  has  not
completed ACSC.

The applicant states that she was advised upon review of  her  records
that she was the number one nonselect and that had she  completed  PME
(ACSC) she would have been promoted.  They point out that a  statement
like this is entirely unsubstantiated as an officer’s promotion select
or nonselect standing at a central selection  board  is  part  of  the
record of proceedings of the  board  and  is  thereby  protected  from
release under the law.  It is impossible that her standing could  have
been revealed to her as a matter-of-fact.  Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a statement saying  that  she  would  like  the
board members of the CY04 Lieutenant Colonel  Promotion  Board  to  be
aware that she took the required exams and read all of  the  materials
for completion of ACSC.  However, she could not pass  the  last  exam.
There is no documentation allowed in her military records to show this
and as a result, her record reads as if she did  not  bother  to  take
ACSC.

AFPC/DPPPO statements are true in that she did not make  this  request
until after the board had met, but her statements are  incomplete  and
do not address her issue.  The process of an “As Met”  review  process
is one that is not used until the service member is denied  promotion.
So she saw no need to pursue this process  until  now.   This  process
helped her to gain a bigger picture of what was wrong with her record,
specifically omission of ACSC.  She was not aware that the  perception
of her record would read that she did not take ACSC and just  blew  it
off.

During the time of this board, her belief was that the strength of her
job performance and her career success would get  her  promoted.   She
believed in  the  words  and  wisdom  of  senior  leadership  and  the
mentoring process, which she knows now was a mistake.  There are  some
clear deficits in the process; being told “do not” send a  letter  and
being told from Air University ACSC is not a requirement for promotion
impacted her decision.  She accepts the responsibility of her error.

The fact still remains, she did complete ACSC and  took  the  required
tests but unfortunately could not pass the last test and was denied an
opportunity to retake another one at that point.  She has not had time
to repeat the entire course and remains unclear on whether ACSC  is  a
requirement for promotion or not.  She asks that she  be  allowed  the
opportunity to correct her mistake by  submitting  her  letter,  which
explains the omission of ACSC in her records, and she  be  allowed  to
meet a special selection board.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 1 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 May 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 30 Sep 05.




                             MARILYN M. THOMAS
                             Vice Chair