RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03312
            INDEX CODE:  131.10
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 May 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of captain by the Calendar  Year  2005B  (CY05B)
Captain Selection Process, with a date of rank of 29 May 06.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  information  presented  to  the  Management  Level  Review  (MLR)   was
incorrect.   His  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)  and  contents  were
considered in the promotion recommendation process despite the fact the  UIF
was closed-out and removed by his commander prior  to  the  finalization  of
the decision.  Air Force Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  and  duty  history  errors
existed on his AMS Web Single Uniformed  Retrieval  Format  (SURF)  printout
and the incorrect AFSC was listed on his ACT Officer Quality Report and  his
Officer Selection Brief (OSB).  His Training Report (TR) was  submitted  and
filed in his records without being provided  an  opportunity  to  rebut  the
report.  His previous commander was determined to be  is  rater  because  he
had not been on station 120 days at board time.

In  support  of  his  request,   applicant   provided   a   SURF   printout,
documentation associated with his UIF, his Promotion  Recommendation  (PRF),
his TR, and documentation associated with his CY05 promotion  consideration.
 His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  was  appointed  a  second  lieutenant  on  29  May  02  and   was
voluntarily  ordered  to  extended  active  on  that  same  date.   He   was
progressively promoted to the grade of first lieutenant having assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 29 May  04.   He  was  considered
and not selected for promotion to the grade of captain by the CY05B  Captain
Selection Process.

The applicant's request was provided to the Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board
(ERAB) for review.  The ERAB approved the applicant's request  and  provided
him an opportunity to rebut the  TR,  removed  the  contested  TR  from  his
record and replaced it with a corrected TR.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states it is  assumed  the  applicant
is stating the PRF provided by the ML is incorrect.  He received a  "Do  Not
Promote" (DNP) recommendation on his  CY05  PRF.   The  PRF  states  he  was
eliminated  from  Specialized  Undergraduate  Pilot   Training   (SUPT)   as
reflected on the TR and that his duty history  did  not  warrant  promotion.
In addition, he failed to complete the Air and Space  Basic  Course  (ASBC).
He failed to provide any support from the Senior  Rater  and  MLR  President
stating  they  were  provided  inaccurate  information  and   the   PRF   is
inaccurate.  Based on his TRs, it seems he has  not  met  his  qualification
standards, which is documented on the PRF.

He states the ML received information from a UIF that was removed  from  his
records.  The letter of removal provided was signed by his  group  commander
and states the UIF should be removed effective 10 Mar 05 based on  the  fact
the LOR was dated on 10 Mar  03.   However,  AFI  36-2907  states  the  wing
commander or equivalent has the authority to  remove  a  UIF,  not  a  group
commander and the UIF disposition is 2 years from  the  date  the  commander
signs Section V of the AF IMT 1058.  Section  V  of  the  AF  IMT  1058  was
signed on 30 Jun 03.  The UIF and LOR were not required to be  removed  from
his record until 30 Jun 05, and therefore, were authorized to  be  presented
to the ML.

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.   DPPPO  states  the  AMS  Web  printout,  ACT
Quality Force Report, and Air Force Officer Selection Brief are not used  in
the captain selection process.  The only authorized  printout  is  the  Duty
Qualification  History  Brief   that   is   available   in   the   Promotion
Recommendation In-Board Management System for senior raters'  and  the  ML's
review.  Although the duty history was incorrect, DPPPO does not believe  it
was the basis for his DNP recommendation and nonselection to  the  grade  of
captain.

The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant requested his case be administratively closed in order  to  gather
information  necessary  to  respond  to  the  Air  Force  evaluations.    He
subsequently requested  his  case  be  reopened  stating  an  injustice  was
created by not affording him a timely response to the training report  dated
March  2005.   He  was  eventually  given   an   opportunity   to   respond,
approximately one year later; well after the TR was made a matter of  record
and included in his captain's board packet.  The passage  of  time  made  it
difficult to gather  support  for  his  position  because  the  memories  of
personnel who could have offered support were dulled with time and  reaching
them was difficult.  The injustice cannot be corrected administratively  and
the TR should be voided.  Additionally, AFI  36-2406  states  that  a  ratee
must again be given opportunity to respond to any new information  added  to
the report.  To date, he  still  has  not  been  given  the  opportunity  to
respond to the content added by a subsequent evaluator.

The statement that he failed to complete ASBC is made in support of  a  poor
duty history when in fact  his  disenrollment  was  the  result  of  a  knee
injury.  No mention is made  of  his  performance  report  dated  May  2003,
months after the incident and associated LOR; illustrating  the  singularity
of the error in judgment and the high level of performance aside  from  that
event.

His group commander at the time acted in good faith to remove his UIF  after
being advised that he was authorized to do so.  His unit was  geographically
separated from its wing.   As  a  result,  applicant  states  he  personally
misinterpreted his group commander to be  a  wing  commander  equivalent  in
this situation, as well as having been advised by the group  commander  that
the authority had been delegated to him.  The incorrect  Duty  Qualification
History Brief may not have been the basis for his nonselection; however,  it
was a confounding factor.  A correct  duty  history  would  have  shown  his
career field as an Engineer.  The incorrect duty history showed  only  pilot
training eliminee, giving no evidence for  his  realization  of  a  new  and
valuable career field with the Air Force.

Col W--- stated to him in a phone conversation that the  reason  he  made  a
DNP recommendation was that  in  his  estimation  within  six  months  after
disenrollment from SUPT he would "go out and get another DUI."  This  is  an
unjustly capricious reason for  a  DNP  recommendation.   This  judgment  is
unduly speculative and evidence existed suggesting he would  not  take  such
actions.  AFI 36-2401 states that as little as  60  days  are  adequate  for
evaluators to provide a valid assessment according to Air  Force  standards.
Colonel B--- observed him for over 60 days prior to his  definitely  promote
recommendation as stated in a signed letter of recommendation.   Because  of
the vast difference between the flyer career field and the  engineer  career
field he is more fit to evaluate him for promotion in his then  and  current
career field.
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 injustice warranting corrective action.   Applicant
requests he be promoted to the grade of captain with a date of  rank  of  29
May 06.  He contends that his promotion recommendation process  was  tainted
by a UIF that was previously removed, errors on his selection brief,  and  a
faulty TR.  While an attempt was made to remove the unfavorable  information
from his records prior to the ML process, it appears that action  was  taken
prematurely by an individual who was not in authority  to  remove  the  UIF.
As such, it is our opinion the UIF and  the  information  contained  therein
were appropriately made available to  the  ML  for  review.   We  note  that
corrections have been made to his 18 Jan 05 TR and are not persuaded by  his
contentions that further corrective action or removal of  the  TR  from  his
records is warranted.  While it appears that his Duty Qualification  History
Brief may have contained erroneous data, we  are  not  persuaded  that  this
error, in  itself,  was  a  contributing  factor  to  his  nonselection  for
promotion.  Absent persuasive evidence that the PRF as  written  is  not  an
accurate assessment of his promotion potential we do not  feel  inclined  to
disturb the judgment of the commanding  officers  involved.   Therefore,  we
agree with the opinions and recommendations of  the  Air  Force  offices  of
primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Having been  presented  no  evidence  which  would  persuade  us
otherwise, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2006-
03312 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 06 and 28 Jul 06, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 2 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 16 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Apr 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 21 Apr 06.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 May 06, w/atchs.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair