RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03281
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her record be corrected to reflect her Promotion Effective Date  (PED)
and Date of Rank (DOR) to major as 16 June 2003 rather  than  16  June
2006.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her record met the fiscal year 2006 (FY06) Air  National  Guard  (ANG)
Line and Nonline Major  and  Lieutenant  Colonel  Promotion  Selection
Board held in April 2005.  She was selected  for  promotion  to  major
however, she contends had her Officer Performance Reports for 2002 and
2003 been properly and timely completed, she would have been  promoted
to major on 16  June  2003.   As  the  OPR’s  were  not  completed  in
accordance with governing Instructions and were not  timely,  she  was
forced to meet a mandatory promotion board instead of qualifying for a
Position Vacancy (PV) promotion to major.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided  a  copy  of  the
results of an IG investigation into her complaint  of  reprisal  under
the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), results of the FY06  ANG  Line
and Nonline Major and Lieutenant Colonel  Promotion  Selection  Boards
and associated statistics.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began her military career  on  5  November  1983.   She  was
commissioned on 15 June 1995 and was  progressively  promoted  to  the
Reserve grade of captain with an effective and date of rank of 15 June
1999.  On 16 February 2005 she submitted a complaint of reprisal under
the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA).  On  18 April  2005,  National
Guard Bureau Inspector Generals office  (NGB-IGR)  indicated  after  a
thorough review of her submission and additional  research,  including
interviews, found the facts did not establish that her supervisor  and
others named in her complaint committed reprisal.   NGB-IG  noted  her
complaint was reviewed by the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Inspector
General’s Complaints Resolution Directorate (SAG/IGQ) and the  Special
Inquiries Directorate of the DOD’s Inspector General’s office.   On  8
April 2005, both concurred  that  further  investigation  of  her  WPA
complaint was not warranted and was  therefore  closed.   However,  an
issue included in her complaint regarding her late 2002 and 2003 OPR’s
was to be turned over to SAF/IGQ  for  appropriate  action.   She  was
recently selected by a mandatory promotion board to the Reserve  grade
of major with a PED and DOR of 16 June 2006.  She is currently serving
on active duty and has over 22 years of satisfactory service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC recommends denial.  DPFOC states her  contention  she  would
have been promoted to major via PV if her 2002 and her 2003  OPRs  had
been properly and timely completed is  unsubstantiated.   DPFOC  notes
while the OPRs should have been completed in a timely manner, the fact
they were not, in  and  by  itself,  would  not  qualify  her  for  PV
promotion.  In accordance with governing Instructions,  nominees  must
be recommended for  a  PV  promotion  by  their  immediate  commander.
Commanders will justify the recommendation for PV promotion  in  their
recommendation letter.  PV promotions are not routinely offered to all
officers and the member cannot assume she would have been selected for
PV promotion based solely on completion of her 2002  and  2003  OPR’s.
Since it appears her commander did not recommend her for PV promotion,
it must be assumed her commander’s  intent  was  for  her  to  meet  a
mandatory board.

DPFOC’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  states  the  ANG  advisory  cites  a  paragraph  from   ANG
Instruction (ANGI) 36-2504, Federal Recognition Of  Promotion  In  The
Air National Guard And As A Reserve Of The Air Force,  but  failed  to
review Table 3.1, rule 2 of the  same  ANGI  wherein  it  is  noted  a
minimum of two recent Officer Performance Reports (OPR’s) was  also  a
“requirement” (emphasis applicant) under the PV program.   She  states
under the ANG PV program,  recent  and  current  OPR’s  (processed  in
accordance with ANGI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems)
are required.  In the absence of on time  OPR’s,  ANG  members  become
ineligible for promotion under the PV program.  She  notes  compliance
with ANGI 36-2406 is mandatory.  Yet, her OPR’s were not filed  within
the required 60-days after the close-out date.  In fact, for  her  OPR
ending 17 October 2002, the final required signature was not  obtained
on the OPR until 17 February 2004 and the final signature for her  OPR
ending the period 17 October 2003, was not obtained until  1  November
2004.  Further, she contends the  OPR  needed  for  her  to  meet  her
mandatory promotion board  was  not  properly  filed  in  her  Officer
Selection Record (OSR) leading the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC)
to call her out of frustration, two  weeks  prior  to  her  board,  to
enlist her help in locating an OPR that should have been in her OSR.

She  notes  every  time  her  name  was  mentioned  for  PV  promotion
consideration, she was turned down as she did  not  have  two  current
OPR’s on file.  Her immediate supervisor and the Deputy  Director  for
Personnel did not adhere to personnel  policies  in  place  to  ensure
personnel practices were followed.  She contends a co-worker never had
a problem receiving on time  OPR’s  from  the  same  supervisor.   The
leadership in the ANG has a  responsibility  to  create  policies  and
procedures that are applicable to everyone in the ANG.   Further,  ANG
leadership has the fiduciary responsibility to  ensure  that  policies
and procedures are followed in accordance  with  applicable  mandatory
instructions.

Applicant’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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of  an  error  or  injustice  warranting  a  change  in  the
applicant’s date of rank to the Reserve grade  of  major.   The  Board
took  note  that  the  Air  National  Guard’s  position  vacancy  (PV)
promotion  program  is  designed  to   provide   officers   who   have
demonstrated  high  potential  and  exceptional  abilities  with   the
opportunity for accelerated promotion and  are  not  to  be  routinely
offered to all officers.  Additionally, under the ANG position vacancy
program, recent and current (on time) OPRs are required to be on  file
and in the absence of on time OPRs, ANG officers  are  ineligible  for
the position vacancy program. AFI 36-2406 requires OPRs to be filed in
a member’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) 60 days after the  close-out
date. The applicant’s OPR’s for the periods ending 17 October 2002 and
17 October 2003 were not  signed  until  February  and  November  2004
respectfully. While we agree with the ANG that we  cannot  assume  the
applicant would have been selected for PV promotion, we are also aware
she most definitely would not have been recommended for  PV  promotion
absent two current OPR’s.  Inasmuch as the applicant’s command  failed
to ensure her OPRs were accomplished and timely filed in her  OSR  and
in  order  to  resolve  any  potential  promotion  injustice  to   the
applicant, the Board believes that any doubt in this matter should  be
resolved in favor of the applicant.  Therefore, we recommend that  her
records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
__________________________________________________________


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she  was  promoted  to
the Reserve grade of major effective and with a date  of  rank  of  16
June 2003, rather than 16 June 2006.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 April 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Oct 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 6 Feb 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, APPLICANT, dated 10 Mar 06, w/atchs.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair



                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC

[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary



AFBCMR BC-2005-03281




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that she was
promoted to the Reserve grade of major effective and with a date of
rank of 16 June 2003, rather than 16 June 2006.





     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency