RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01550
                                     (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 SEPTEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears he is requesting consideration for promotion to  the  grade
of colonel by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for  the  FY05  United
States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Colonel Line  and  Nonline  Selection
Board, with a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation on his  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not fairly/properly considered for selection “during” the  FY05
USAFR Colonel Selection Board.  The overall recommendation of  Promote
(P) on his PRF was a major factor in his nonselection.  His  immediate
supervisor and directorate chief recommended a DP rating on  his  PRF.
However, the senior rater, a career active duty officer,  awarded  the
recommendation of “P” based on lack of  an  advanced  degree  and  the
closing statements of his Officer Performance Reports  (OPRs).   There
is a distinct difference between the active duty and Reserve promotion
boards regarding emphasis placed on academic education.  His promotion
recommendation was based on active  duty  standards  and  not  Reserve
standards.  This active duty based  action  automatically  placed  his
promotion package at the bottom of the pile and he was not given equal
consideration as his Reserve peers for promotion to colonel.

In support of his request, applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,
copies  of  his  PRF,  an  ANG/DPFO  email  and  additional  documents
associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals  the  applicant’s  Total  Federal  Commissioned  Service  Date
(TFCSD) as 14  February  1980.   His  Total  Active  Federal  Military
Service  Date  (TAFMSD)  is  30  June  1981.   He   is   currently   a
participating  member  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  serving  as   an
Individual  Mobilization  Augmentee  (IMA),  assigned  to  the  Deputy
Director of Intelligence.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel, Reserve of the Air  Force,  with  an  effective
date and date  of  rank  of  19  February  1998.   The  applicant  has
completed a total of 24 years, 1 month and  26  days  of  satisfactory
Federal service.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR ratings subsequent to
his promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               31 Oct 98     Meets Standards (MS)
               31 Oct 99          MS
               31 Oct 00          MS
               31 Oct 01          MS
                1 Jul 02          MS
                1 Jul 03          MS
             #  1 Jul 04          MS

# Top report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by the FY05 USAFR Colonel  Line  and
Nonline Selection Board, which convened on 18 October 2004.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied.  DPB states that the
opinion of the immediate supervisor and/or the directorate chief is  a
recommendation to the senior rater.  The  senior  rater  is  the  sole
authority for evaluating each officer and  awarding  the  PRF  overall
recommendation.  The only  significant  factor  for  consideration  of
Reserve boards that is not relevant  to  the  active  duty  boards  is
participation.   Reserve  participation  is  based  on  an   officer’s
assignment, while active duty is  based  on  full-time  service.   The
Secretary of the Air Force, Memorandum of Instruction (MOI), that  was
read to all board members stated, “Do not consider  completion  of  an
advanced degree and/or PME as a pass-fail requirement.”  Board members
are directed to use the  Whole  Person  Concept.   The  applicant  did
submit  a  letter  to  the  board  president  explaining   the   facts
surrounding  the  overall  PRF  recommendation.   DPB  indicates   the
applicant has placed undue emphasis on  the  PRF  recommendation.   An
objective quality review of the applicant’s selection record  reflects
possible discriminators within his selection record.  DPB states there
is no quota on the number of eligible officers who may  be  awarded  a
“DP” recommendation.  The fact that a senior rater has  a  100%  quota
does not mean he must use that quota.  At the time the  applicant  met
the board, the academic education had significant impact on  promotion
potential for the Total  Force  boards.   This  mindset  is  currently
changing.  Advanced academic degrees will no longer  be  a  factor  in
active duty boards, effective 1 January 2005.  This change  of  policy
will not be effective for Reserve boards until 1 January 2006.

DPB states that the  senior  rater  awarded  what  he  deemed  was  an
appropriate rating.  Lacking support from the senior rater stating  he
made an error in the PRF, the PRF is accurate as written.   A  PRF  is
not the sole determining factor in promotion selection,  nor  does  it
carry the same weight as the form has for active duty  members.   This
is evident in the fact that the FY04 USAFR Colonel’s  Selection  Board
did select an officer who had  a  “P”  recommendation.   There  is  no
indication that a material error of fact  or  material  administrative
error existed.  The HQ ARPC/DPB evaluation, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion  and  indicates  that  the
advisory glosses over the differences between active duty and  Reserve
promotion boards regarding the emphasis placed on academic  education.
The fact remains 0% of active duty personnel without advanced  degrees
are selected for promotion to colonel, while 28% and 15%  respectively
were selected for promotion on the 2004  and  2005  Reserve  selection
boards.  The senior  rater  chose  to  use  more  strict  active  duty
standards in giving him a “P” recommendation.  The “P” recommendation,
based on active duty standards instead of Reserve, place  him  in  the
negative pile from the start.  Evidence of this is the fact  only  one
person has been selected for Reserve colonel with a “P“ recommendation
(out of 1136 total) over the past two years.  The volume of  his  past
service should have proven his past performance and  show  his  future
potential.  Yet, this was masked by the  wrongful  “P”  recommendation
and the negative  connotation  of  a  “P.”   The  timely  awarding  of
decorations is something which was/is totally out of his control.   He
has eight successive OPRs which were written  using  differing  active
Guard  OPR  writing  standards,  versus  the  more   accepted/familiar
stratification of active duty OPRs, was not recognized by  his  active
duty senior rater or apparently by the selection  board.   The  stated
overall “push statements” were not part of the active Guard  style  of
writing OPRs, the differences were not recognized and this undoubtedly
impacted his fair consideration.  He was rated the #2 of  6  HQ  USAFE
IMAs, which is the top 33%.  This is high enough to be selected  under
active duty as well as Reserve promotion standards; the #1  USAFE  IMA
and three others below him (four total USAFE candidates) were selected
for promotion to colonel, yet he was not, specifically because he  had
the “P.”  He did not go into the board judged by the same criteria  as
his  Reserve  peers,  he  did  not  receive  equal  consideration  for
promotion as his peers, and he was negatively/unfairly  impacted  from
beginning to end in the  entire  process.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission is 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.  After a thorough review  of  the
documentation pertaining to this appeal, we are unpersuaded  that  the
contested  PRF  should  be  revised  and  the  applicant   given   SSB
consideration.  His contentions are noted; however,  in  our  opinion,
the detailed comments provided by the  appropriate  Air  Force  office
adequately  address  those  allegations.   Therefore,  we  agree  with
opinions and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  In this respect, we note the applicant met with the senior
rater; however, we did not  find  any  support  from  the  appropriate
senior rater or the Management Level Review (MLR) president to support
a change to the promotion recommendation he received.   We  also  note
the applicant submitted a letter to the board president explaining the
facts surrounding the overall PRF recommendation; therefore, the board
was aware of his circumstances.  Selection boards consider a  member’s
entire record, assessing whole person  factors,  and  we  believe  the
selection board in question had access to  sufficient  information  on
which  to  base  a  reasonable  decision  concerning  the  applicant’s
standing  with  relationship  to  his  peers.   Other  than  his   own
assertions, the applicant did not provide substantive support that  he
was treated unjustly or that his senior  rater  applied  an  erroneous
standard when assessing his promotion potential on the contested  PRF.
While applicant may believe his record is of the highest quality,  his
nonselection for promotion to the grade of colonel  is  indicative  of
the intensely competitive nature of the  promotion  selection  process
for the higher grades.  In view of the foregoing and having  found  no
error or injustice in the preparation of his PRF, we conclude that  no
basis exists to recommend favorable action on applicant’s requests.
_________________________________________________________________

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 July 2005, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
                  Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-01550.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 3 Jun 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 22 Jun 05, w/atch.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair