RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01273
            INDEX CODE:  131.05
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 Oct 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to major be readjusted to  approximately  1 Aug
01, as if selected by the Calendar Year 2000B  (CY00B)  Major  Central
Selection Board (CSB), rather than the CY03A Major CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not make major in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) because of a  poorly
written Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF),  which  used  his  rough
inputs verbatim.  He was unable to gain support from his senior rater,
a Navy captain with whom he had a personality conflict.   His  current
superiors have indicated they don’t know why he was not promoted  IPZ,
but apparently he was not  properly  supported  as  evidenced  by  the
“Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation he  received  for  the  CY03A
CSB, which resulted in his promotion.  Had his IPZ PRF been written at
the quality of all his other PRFs, he would have pinned on major on  1
Aug 01.

The senior rater of the CY00B PRF responded to the applicant’s request
for support with an email, asserting she had difficulty accepting that
a gross injustice had been done in his case and  could  not  sign  the
letter he  had  provided.   She  added  his  record  did  not  support
selection at the time he was nonselected, a fact  he  must  understand
and accept.  She believed the applicant  should  be  thankful  he  was
selected after such a long time of nonselection.

The rater of the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 20 Nov 01,
4 Jul 02, and 3 Feb 03, provides a supporting statement, asserting his
belief that, if the CY00B PRF had been properly written, the applicant
would have been selected  the  first  time  eligible.    The  previous
senior rater (Navy captain)  and  AF  advisor  were  not  inclined  to
support the applicant due to a personality conflict.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant, a captain with a DOR  of
9 Jan 94, was the Chief, Joint Assignments and Personnel  Programs  at
HQ US Military Entrance Processing Command at North Chicago, IL.

The applicant was nonselected for promotion to the grade of  major  by
the following CSBs: CY00B (18 Sep 00), CY01A (18 Jun  01),  CY02A  (19
Feb 02), and CY02B (3 Oct 02).  The PRFs  for  all  these  boards  had
overall recommendations of “Promote,” and had the same Navy captain as
the senior rater.

He was selected for  major,  above-the-promotion-zone  (APZ),  by  the
CY03A CSB, which convened on 5 May 03, giving him a DOR of  1 Apr  04.
The PRF had an overall recommendation of “DP,” and an Army colonel  as
the senior rater.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPO contends an officer may be qualified for promotion  but,
in the judgment of a selection board, he may not be the best qualified
of those who competed for the limited number of  promotion  vacancies.
Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would have  been  selected  by
the CY00B board, they believe a duly constituted  board  applying  the
complete promotion criteria is in the most  advantageous  position  to
render this determination.  A selection board’s prerogative to  do  so
should not be usurped except under  extraordinary  circumstances.   In
the applicant’s case, both  direct  promotion  and  SSB  consideration
would be  inappropriate.   Denial  for  direct  promotion  and/or  SSB
consideration  is  recommended  as  there  is   no   convincing   data
demonstrating a material error or injustice existed.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 20 May 05 for review and comment 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 a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his DOR to major should be changed as  if  selected  by  the
CY00B Major CSB, rather than by the CY03 Major CSB.   The  applicant’s
contentions are duly noted, as was the supporting statement  from  the
rater of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 OPRs.  However, we do not find  these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the available evidence and the rationale provided by  the  Air  Force.
The senior rater explained why she does not  support  the  applicant’s
request, i.e., she had difficulty finding a miscarriage of justice  in
the applicant’s case.  The  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  to  our
satisfaction that a  personality  conflict  between  himself  and  the
senior rater resulted in erroneous assessments of his performance  and
potential.  An officer may be qualified  for  promotion  but,  in  the
judgment of  a  particular  selection  board,  may  not  be  the  best
qualified of those considered for  the  limited  number  of  promotion
vacancies.  We therefore agree with the  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our  decision
that the applicant has not sustained his  burden  of  having  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  In view  of  the  above  and  absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 June 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01273 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 May 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.





                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair