RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01320
            INDEX CODE:  111.00, 131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 Oct 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The rank reflected on his Officer Performance Report  (OPR)  closing  22
Aug 01, be corrected to reflect lieutenant colonel, rather than major.

2.  He be considered for promotion to  the  grade  of  colonel,  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB), for the Fiscal Year  2005  (FY05)  Colonel  Line  and
Nonline Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There should have been three  OPRs  prepared  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel in his record when he was considered for promotion to  colonel,  but
there was only one.  The OPR  closing  22 Aug  01  closed-out  as  a  major.
Although the effective date of  his  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  was
delayed to 11 Sep 01, his date of rank (DOR) was back-dated  to  6  Jun  01,
within the OPR reporting period.  The  OPR  closing  22 Aug  02  incorrectly
listed his rank as major due  to  an  administrative  error  that  has  been
corrected subsequent to the board.  The only OPR in  his  record  reflecting
his grade as lieutenant colonel was the 2003 OPR.  These factors were  cited
as his reason for nonselection for promotion.

In support of his request, applicant provided  a  validation  statement  and
copies of his  OPRs  closing  22  Aug  01  and  22  Aug  02.   His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was in an Active Guard  Reserve
(AGR) status in a major's position.  He  was  considered  and  selected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the FY01 Lieutenant  Colonel
Line and Nonline Promotion Board.  His promotion was delayed  in  accordance
with AFI 36-2504, until he was placed  in  a  position  that  supported  the
promotion grade.  He was promoted to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  on
11 Sep 01, with a Promotion Effective Date (PED) of that same date and  with
a date of rank of 6 Jun 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial.  DPB states although his DOR is 6  Jun  01,  the
promotion did not become effective until 11 Sep 01,  after  the  22  Aug  01
close-out date.  The OPR must reflect the grade of major as he was  a  major
on that date.  During a post board review, requested by the  applicant,  the
error  on  his  22  Aug  02  report  was  discovered  and   administratively
corrected.  The fact that the rank has been  changed  does  not  change  the
contents of the report reviewed by the board.  The exact reason he  was  not
selected for promotion to colonel is not available.  No one  factor  can  be
cited as the reason for non-selection.  Board members use the  whole  person
concept and review the entire record.

It is his responsibility to ensure his selection folder is up  to  date  and
correct prior to the board convening  date.   Opportunities  for  correction
are not driven by  promotion  consideration,  but  by  a  due  diligence  in
maintaining a complete and  accurate  record.   The  DPB  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the fact that he had only one OPR with the rank to  Lt
Col in his selection folder was cited as the  reason  for  his  nonselection
during post-board counseling by ARPC.  DPB's recommendation  for  denial  of
his request is a beaurocratic excuse to relieve the  personnel  system  from
doing its job.  His complete submission 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  warranting  corrective   action.    The
applicant contends that his nonselection for promotion  to  colonel  by  the
FY05 colonel selection board was  due to the fact his record as it  met  the
board, only contained one OPR reflecting service in the grade of  lieutenant
colonel.  He requests his OPR closing 22 Aug 01 be changed to  indicate  the
grade of lieutenant colonel, rather than major, contending his DOR was back-
dated to 6 Jun 01, but the report was unchanged.  After  careful  review  of
the applicant's submission and the available evidence of record  we  do  not
believe an error or injustice exists within the 22 Aug 01 report.  We  agree
with the Air Force office of primary responsibility which opined that  since
his promotion did not become effective until 11 Sep 01,  his  OPR  correctly
reflected the grade in which he was serving  at  the  time  the  report  was
rendered.  We note his OPR closing  22  Aug  02  erroneously  reflected  his
grade as major as it met the FY05 selection board and has subsequently  been
corrected.  However, because of the multitude of factors considered  in  the
selection process we are  not  persuaded  that  this  particular  error,  in
itself, is the sole reason for his nonselection for  promotion.   Therefore,
it is our opinion that applicant has not  shown  that  the  incorrect  grade
reflected on his 2002  OPR  is  a  material  error  warranting  relief,  and
therefore consideration by SSB is not warranted in this case.   Accordingly,
we adopt  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force  as  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 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-
01320 in Executive Session on 9 Aug 05, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 29 Jun 05.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jul 05.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair