RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01578
            INDEX NUMBER:  136.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 Nov 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The results of the CY06 Line of the  Air  Force  Force  Shaping  Board
results be corrected to show that he was selected for retention.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his records were in  error  because  he  is  aware  of  an
individual that was stratified below him in all areas on  the  AF  IMT
3538, “Retention Recommendation” form, who was retained.  He and  this
individual met the same board under the same core Air Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC).  He had 10 more points  in  decorations  than  the  other
individual, their deployment status was the same, and  they  both  re-
cored from the same AFSC.  Given the results of the board,  a  mistake
must have taken place.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of  the  retention
recommendation prepared on him.  The applicant’s complete  submission,
with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of  first
lieutenant.  He was considered and not selected for retention  by  the
L9906A Force Shaping Board (10 Apr 06).   According  to  the  Military
Personnel Data System (MilPDS) he has a  current  date  of  separation
(DOS) of 28 Sep 06.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRF  recommends  denial  of   the   applicant’s   request   for
consideration for retention by special selection board  for  the  CY06
Force  Shaping  Board.   They  note  that  each  officer’s   Retention
Recommendation Form (RRF) was written by the first colonel or GS-15 in
their chain and endorsed by their senior rater.  The senior rater  was
limited to one standardized statement in which they rank  ordered  all
of their officers within the eligible officers in their year group and
core AFSC.  Stratification by a senior rater is only one aspect of the
retention recommendation.  The members of the board are empanelled  as
an independent body to factor the senior rater’s  stratification  into
their assessment of the officer’s record.  If based on  the  Secretary
of the Air Force’s  guidance  to  use  the  whole-person  concept,  an
officer is deemed by the board’s collective evaluation not to  be  the
best qualified for retention in  the  Air  Force,  they  will  not  be
retained  regardless  of  the   senior   rater’s   recommendation   or
stratification.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO also recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request.   They
concur  with  the  findings  and  recommendations  as  put  forth   by
AFPC/DPPRF.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
14 Jul 06 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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
offices of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our 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  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 issue 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 Docket  Number  BC-2006-
01578 in Executive Session on 24 August 2006, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memo, AFPC/DPPRF, dated 2 Jun 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jul 06.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002


1LT XXXXXXX, USAF
XXXXXXX.
XXXXXXX, CO 80907

Dear Lieutenant Foote

      Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-01578.

      After careful consideration of your application and military
records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.  Accordingly,
the Board denied your application.

      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence
for consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such additional
evidence, a further review of your application is not possible.

      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR





                                 ALGIE WALKER, JR
                                 Chief Examiner
                                 Air Force Board for Correction
                                 of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings

                   AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
                        OF MILITARY RECORDS

               CASE TRANSMITTAL / COORDINATION RECORD


IN THE MATTER OF:                                  DOCKET NO:

XXXXXXX     BC-2006-01578


ROUTE IN TURN    INITIALS  DATE


1.  CHIEF EXAMINER     ________  _______
    (Coordination)


2.  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR       ________  _______
    (Coord/Signature)



3.  RETURN TO EXAMINER TO E-MAIL/FAX


    TO PANEL CHAIR


4.  Mr. Michael J. Novel     ________  _______
    PANEL CHAIR
    (Signature on Proceedings)


5.  EXAMINER


6.  AFBCMR (Processing)




                                 ALGIE WALKER, JR.
                                 Examiner
                                 Air Force Board for Correction
                                 of Military Records



             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


                          DATE:    24     Aug     06



                               _______________

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
____________________________________

Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
____________________________________    CODE:

Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member     CASE NO.: 1
____________________________________
_______



TYPE OF MEETING:      FORMAL            EXEC SESSION
 X
                                               _____
  ____

EXAMINER:                  Al                 Walker



APPLICANT:  XXXXXXX               SSAN:  XXX-XX-0172

                           _________________________
______________

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01578

DECISION           OF           THE           BOARD:
_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________
_________________

_____________________________________________________
_________________

_____________________________________________________
_________________

_____________________________________________________
_________________

RATIONALE:
_____________________________________________________
_____

_____________________________________________________
_________________

_____________________________________________________
_________________




___________________________________
                                        EXAMINER