RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01935
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  GUY J. FERRANTE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 Dec 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for  promotion
to the grade of major by the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Line  and  Health
Professions Major Promotion Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record  which  was  considered  by  the  FY05  board  inaccurately
reflected  an  unsatisfactory  retirement/retention  year  (R/R)  year
closing 18 Aug 03.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  counsel’s  brief,
supportive statements, and a letter pertaining to the  denial  of  his
request for SSB consideration.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available documentation indicates  that  the  applicant  is  currently
serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of captain.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      26 Sep 91  Training Report
      16 Nov 92  Meets Standards
      30 Jul 93  Meets Standards
      16 Oct 94  Meets Standards
      15 Sep 95  Meets Standards
      10 Sep 98  Meets Standards
      11 Sep 98 - 18 Aug 02       No Report Available/Required
  #   18 Aug 03  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)

# Top Report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  the  FY05  Line  and  Health
Professions Major Promotion Selection Board.

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  considered  and
nonselected for promotion to major by the FY05 USAFR Line  and  Health
Professions Major Promotion Selection Board.  The applicant's  Officer
Selection Brief (OSB) reflected an unsatisfactory retirement/retention
year (R/R) closing out 18 Aug 03.

According to ARPC, the applicant requested SSB consideration  and  was
denied  (AFI  36-2504,  Paragraph  9.2.3.2).   Eligible  officers  are
responsible for monitoring their own eligibility  and  ensuring  their
own selection record is correct  and  up  to  date  before  the  board
convening date (AFI 36-2504, Paragraph 1.7).  The decision centered on
the fact the applicant had ample opportunity to request correction  of
the R/R year closing out 18 Aug 03.  The applicant  was  afforded  two
opportunities to address the point credit summary discrepancy.

The Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) and Instructions  for  Correction
of OPB were generated  on  or  about  14  Sep  03.   Instructions  for
reviewing the participation summary of the OPB  state,  "If  you  were
participating in a Reserve of the Air Force assignment,  even  if  you
are currently in a nonparticipating assignment, a point history should
be printed on your brief."  As a minimum, officers are  instructed  to
review each data item to ensure it  is  accurate  and  complete.   The
applicant has stated that the participation points were not  reflected
on the OPB, which indicates that the information  was  inaccurate  and
incomplete.

Receipt of the AF Form 526, Point  Credit  Summary,  in  Nov  03  also
allowed sufficient  time  to  request  correction  to  the  R/R  year.
A thorough review of the AF Form 526 would have alerted the  applicant
that his last R/R year was unsatisfactory.  As a participating  member
of the Reserve, it is  imperative  to  review  the  AF  Form  526  for
accuracy of the point credit documentation.

ARPC/DPB indicated the applicant stated the "only factor"  that  could
be identified for his nonselection was his  participation  points  for
the R/R year ending 18 Aug 03.  The points issue was the "only factor"
that could possibly warrant SSB consideration.   Discriminators  found
in his selection record included unsatisfactory participation from  26
Sep 99 to 18 Aug 02, lack of a current decoration, and OPRs that  were
lacking   stratification,   impact   and   result   statements,    and
Professional Military Education (PME)  pushes.   The  members  of  the
promotion selection board used the "Whole Person  Concept"  to  review
the entire record of each individual.  No  one  factor  alone  is  the
basis for selection or nonselection.

In ARPC/DPB’s view, it was the applicant’s  responsibility  to  ensure
the accuracy of his selection record  prior  to  the  board  convening
date.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that ARPC/DPB has not satisfied its burden  in  this  case.
First, it does not deny that an inaccurate points  record  showing  an
unsatisfactory level of participation was obviously prejudicial to the
applicant’s competitiveness.  Second,  they  make  amorphous  comments
about a  promotion  board’s  consideration  of  an  officer’s  “entire
record” with realizing  that  in  the  applicant’s  case,  his  record
contained documentation of nine years of stellar active duty  service,
which began with  his  graduation  from  the  Air  Force  Academy  and
included all the decorations, stratification, and PME that  one  would
expect.  In sum, they advanced no legitimate reason why the  applicant
should be denied the relief he so  obviously  and  deserves--promotion
reconsideration with a corrected record that accurately  reflects  his
more-than-satisfactory participation in the Reserve program during the
R/R year ending 18 Aug 03.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  No evidence has been presented which
has shown to our satisfaction the applicant  exercised  the  necessary
diligence to ensure the accuracy of  his  record  prior  to  the  FY05
board.  In view of the foregoing, and in  the  absence  of  sufficient
evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the  OPR
and adopt its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  of  establishing  he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.   Accordingly,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01935 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 05, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
      Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 22 Jul 05.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, counsel, dated 29 Aug 05, w/atchs.




                                   CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY
                                   Panel Chair