RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01303
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 Oct 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the Reserve grade of major  be
changed from 1 Oct 01 to 30 Apr 01.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of her selection to major  in  Apr  01,  her  active  duty
supervisor was not informed by the 12 MSS/DPMPEP (officer  promotions)
or by the AFPC/CCR (Reserve Advisor)  that  he  could  accelerate  her
promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2504, paragraph  6.5.   The  error
was discovered the following year when another  officer  was  selected
and the new Reserve Advisor informed her supervisor of the  provision.
Her supervisor told her that had he been made aware of the  provision,
he would have accelerated her promotion.

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, supportive statement, and other documents  associated  with
the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air  Force  Reserve  in
the grade of major, with a DOR and effective date of 1 Oct 01.  She is
credited with 19 years of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the  Air
Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommended denial noting  the  applicant  was  selected  for
promotion by the  Fiscal  Year  2002  (FY02)  Major  Line  and  Health
Professions Promotion Board with a projected DOR of  1  Oct  01.   The
also noted the applicant’s statement she was notified of promotion  by
her supervisor on 17 Apr 01.  According to ARPC/DPB, public release of
that board  was  30  Apr  01.   They  provide  information  concerning
accelerated  promotion  in  Air  Reserve  Personnel  Center  Memoranda
(ARPCM)  sent  to  the  servicing  Military  Personnel  Flight   (MPF)
approximately two weeks prior to public  release.   Early  release  of
promotion information to the servicing MPF is done to  allow  time  to
notify commanders of their select/nonselect officers and initiate  any
administrative actions, such as accelerated promotion requests, before
the official release of the board results.

ARPC/DBP indicated that  an  accelerated  promotion  request  must  be
completed  by  the  commander,  endorsed  by  the  senior  rater,  and
forwarded to HQ ARPC/DPBPE.  The request must be received two business
days before the  proposed  DOR  to  allow  time  for  processing.   HQ
ARPC/DPBPE verifies  accelerated  promotion  requests  to  ensure  the
member meets all eligibility criteria as stated in AFI  36-2504,  6.5.
An officer must be on the select list of a mandatory promotion  board,
incumbent in a position at or above the grade to which the officer was
selected for promotion.  Further, the last retirement/retention  (R/R)
years must be satisfactory (50 points or more), and the position  must
be vacant, based on  the  number  of  authorized  versus  assigned  as
outlined  in  AFI  36-2504,  2.6.   The  applicant  has  not  provided
documentation to verify she met the eligibility  requirements  for  an
accelerated promotion on 30 Apr 01.

ARPC/DPB stated the applicant is not eligible to meet the Fiscal  Year
2006 (FY06) Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Board convening 13 Jun
05 based on the 1 Oct 01 DOR.   A  DOR  of  30 Sep 01  or  earlier  is
required for this board.  A Position Vacancy nomination is not a right
or an entitlement simply because of an assignment to a  higher  graded
position.  If the applicant is nominated by her senior rater and meets
all eligibility requirements she may have the opportunity to meet  the
Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) and Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08)  Position  Vacancy
Boards.  She will meet the Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09) and, if  necessary,
the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) mandatory boards.

According to ARPC/DPB, information  concerning  accelerated  promotion
opportunity was provided to the servicing MPF with sufficient time  to
allow the  commander  to  be  notified  and  initiate  an  accelerated
promotion  request.   No  information  was  provided  to  verify   the
applicant met the eligibility criteria for accelerated promotion on 30
Apr 01.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that she is disappointed at the tone of  the  advisory  and
wants to clarify as to why she has requested the change to her date of
rank.  She believes the advisory questions the integrity  of  her  and
her supervisor as to whether or not she  was  in  a  major  billet  to
“prove” she could receive an accelerated promotion.  It discounts  the
fact that her  supervisor  stated  he  did  not  know  he  could  have
accelerated her promotion based on the fact she was in  major  billet.
This is not a matter of her being “lazy” or procrastinating.  She  was
selected for major while in a major billet, but because her supervisor
did not receive proper guidance from the MPF, she was not afforded the
opportunity for an accelerated promotion by her supervisor.   She  did
not push  the  issue  regarding  the  error  until  she  realized  the
implications for meeting the promotion board.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  her  contentions  were  duly
noted.   However,  we  do  not   find   the   applicant’s   assertions
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  (OPR).   The   applicant’s
contends  her  supervisor  was  not  informed  that  he   could   have
accelerated her promotion and has provided a  statement  from  him  to
that effect.  However,  after  a  thorough  review  of  the  available
evidence, we are of the opinion he  should  have  been  aware  of  the
requirements, and  we  are  not  convinced  that  was  not  the  case.
Furthermore, no  evidence  has  been  presented  which  shows  to  our
satisfaction that the applicant was the incumbent in a  higher  graded
position on 30 Apr 01, or that a true vacancy  existed  based  on  the
authorized versus the assigned criteria.  In view  of  the  foregoing,
and in the absence  of  sufficient  evidence  the  applicant  met  the
eligibility requirements for an accelerated promotion, we  agree  with
the recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for
our decision the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that she has suffered either an error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01303 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 05, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 16 May 05.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 31 May 05.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair