RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02093
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  03 JAN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  colonel  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2004C  (CY04C)  Central  Colonel
Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Pertinent information concerning his chaplain service leadership  assignment
at Maxwell AFB and Professional Military Education (PME) history was  either
erroneously  misinterpreted  or  not  considered  by  the  promotion   board
members.  He is requesting an SSB at the direction, guidance and counsel  of
Air Force senior  officers.   His  functional  and  line  chain  of  command
believe the evidence is  very  compelling  that  an  injustice  and  mistake
occurred during the promotion board.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel (Lt Col) effective and with a date of  rank  (DOR)  of  1
February 2001.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
colonel by the CY04C Central Colonel Selection Board, which  convened  on  6
December 2004.





OPR profile since 1997 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 06 May 99     Meets Standards (MS)
                 06 May 00                   (MS)
                 30 Mar 01                   (MS)
                 30 Mar 02                   (MS)
                 30 Mar 03                   (MS)
                 22 Aug 03                   (MS)
                *  22 Aug 04                 (MS)

* Top Report for the CY04C Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAFE indicated they confirm that the applicant was selected to  attend
Air War College during Academic Year  (AY)  2005-2006  which  was  correctly
annotated on his Officer Preselection Brief (OPSB) which met  the  Colonel’s
Board in December of 2004.  Secondly, they confirm he was removed  from  the
Air War College billet after his non-selection  for  colonel  based  on  Air
Force policy which reserves  Air  War  College  for  officers  selected  for
colonel or those who are on track to make colonel.   Thirdly,  they  confirm
that he is correctly coded in their personnel data system (PDS) as a  school
select, indicating that he  was  on  the  schools  list  when  selected  for
lieutenant colonel.  He was also recommended for  Joint  Senior  Development
Education (SDE) on his Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF)  so  lack  of  a
school recommendation was not the reason he was not  selected  for  colonel.
After careful review, there does not appear to be  any  errors  in  his  PME
block on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB).

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial indicating eligible officers meeting  a  board
have the option to submit a letter to the  board  president  addressing  any
matters of record concerning themselves that they believe  is  important  to
their consideration for  promotion.   As  such,  the  applicant  could  have
written a  letter  to  the  board  members  informing  them  of  his  career
leadership assignment progression and  PME  history  selection.   They  have
verified that he did not elect to exercise this entitlement.   The  time  to
submit a letter to the board is prior to convening of  the  original  board,
not after his nonselection for promotion.

The results of the original CY04C board were based on a complete  review  of
the applicant’s entire selection  record,  assessing  whole  person  factors
such as job  performance,  professional  qualities,  depth  and  breadth  of
experience, leadership, and education.  Although the  member  was  qualified
for promotion, he was not the best  qualified  of  other  eligible  officers
competing for the limited number of promotion vacancies in the  judgment  of
a  selection  board  vested  with  discretionary  authority  to  make   such
selections.

The evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluation  and  indicated  he  believes   an
injustice occurred during the CY04C Colonel’s Board.  He  indicates  he  did
not write the board president because he has been  mentored  by  experienced
line and chaplain officers who consistently state writing a  letter  to  the
board president sends up a “red flag!”

Because of his position as the Executive Officer to the Chief  of  Chaplains
he knew exactly where he stood with one OPR due before the  board  convened.
He was rated the number one Lt Col in his career field and that  information
coupled with the fact that he was  an  Air  War  College  select  -  he  was
targeted as a “shoo-in” for selection.

The PME portion of his OSB is not  listed  in  chronological  order  and  he
believes it is a possibility  that  the  board  members  missed  significant
data.

He indicates he is the first Latter-day Saints (LDS) chaplain to  have  ever
served at the United States Air  Force  Academy  (USAFA),  a  hand  selected
prestigious assignment.  In fact, he is the first and so far  the  only  LDS
chaplain to have served at any of the service schools in the history of  the
military chaplaincy and he was rated the number  one  chaplain  on  a  large
USAFA staff.  He is only the second LDS chaplain to have been hand  selected
for an Air Staff assignment.  He is the first  LDS  Air  Force  chaplain  to
have been an Air  War  College  designee.   He  has  been  held  up  by  his
denominational endorsing agent  as  the  role  model  for  other  young  LDS
chaplains to follow.  He further  indicates  the  first  question  his  wing
commander (Southern Baptist) asked him after he informed  him  of  his  non-
selection was “Do you think your non-select had  anything  to  do  with  you
being LDS?”  That same question had  been  asked  over  and  over  again  by
colleagues and other line  officers.   He  would  like  to  think  that  his
denomination was not a detractor to board members and especially to the  two
colonel chaplains who served on that board; however, he  has  been  in  this
career field too long to ignore the possibility of religious injustice.






An AETC Chaplain Colonel admitted to him in a  telephone  conversation  that
he had never seen his [the applicant’s] records prior to the  Major  Command
(MAJCOM) Leadership Review  Board.   He  rated  two  chaplains  that  worked
directly with him number one and two Lt  Cols  in  his  command.   His  [the
applicant’s] question is “how could  he  make  a  valid  assessment  of  the
stratification of chaplains in his command without  ever  having  looked  at
his record?”  And if  the  functional  two-star  documented  his  leadership
performance as number one how did he fall to number  three  or  four  within
AETC?

The applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

The applicant provided additional documentation that is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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  an  error  or  an  injustice.   The  applicant  contends  that
pertinent information concerning his chaplain service leadership  assignment
at Maxwell AFB and PME history was either erroneously misinterpreted or  not
considered by the promotion board members.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record we are not persuaded the applicant should  be  considered
for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB for the CY04C  Central  Colonel
Selection  Board.   We  note  the   applicant   has   submitted   supporting
documentation from his rater during the  contested  time  period,  which  is
duly noted; however,  we  do  not  find  that  this  statement  provides  an
adequate basis to recommend approval of the  requested  relief.   Also,  the
applicant failed to provide evidence showing the OSR specifically,  the  OSB
PME history, was not accurate.  The OSB is a short summary of  an  officer’s
career.  It is not a complete  picture.   The  OPR  portrays  what  job  the
officer held and how well the officer accomplished that  job.   The  measure
of the officer’s accomplishments is located within the OPR and PRF, not  the
OSB.  The Board believes the rater and additional rater  were  in  the  best
position to accurately assess the performance of the  applicant  during  the
contested time period.  In addition, the  applicant  could  have  chosen  to
write a letter to the board president informing the president of his  career
leadership assignment progression and PME history selection.  He did not  do
so.  Therefore, we  agree  with  the  opinion  and  recommendations  of  the
appropriate offices of primary responsibility.  In view of the above and  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  upon
which to recommend granting the relief sought.

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(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
02093 in Executive Session on 15 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
                  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAFE, dated 15 Jul 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Sep 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Aug 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Aug 05.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Sep 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Director of Military Relations,
                 dated 11 Oct 05, w/atchs.





                                KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                Panel Chair