RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00661
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 AUG 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was not eligible to meet the  CY97
major promotion board and he be given Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)
consideration for promotion by all  subsequent  promotion  boards,  in
which he would be entitled.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Officer Selection Record (OSR) was wrongfully  considered  by  the
CY97 Major Board.  He believes that based on  AFI  36-2501,  dated  16
July 2004, under promotion ineligibility,  he  should  not  have  been
considered for promotion, because he returned to active duty under the
Voluntary Recall Program, which required  12  months  on  active  duty
prior to meeting a board.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant returned to active as a captain on 3 October 1996,  with
a date of rank of 28 December 1990.

He was nonselected by the CY97C Major  Board,  but  was  selected  for
promotion to major by the CY98B Major Board, which convened on 6 April
1998.  He is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
major and was promoted to that grade on 1 September 1998.

Applicant was considered and not selected to the grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by the CY02B Central Selection Board as an  in  the  promotion
zone (IPZ) eligible.

On 29 March 2004, the applicant submitted an application  to  the  Air
Force Board for Correction of  Military  Records  (AFBCMR)  requesting
consideration by the CY02B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection  Board
(CSB) or a direct promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel.   He
contended he separated from the Air Force to resolve  a  family  issue
and subsequently, with his family obligations fulfilled, he  requested
and was selected to return to active duty.  He  pointed  out  that  he
believed due to his four and a half year break in service he  was  not
selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  The  Board  denied  his
request and opined that the selection board had at their  disposal  an
adequate record on which to base their determinations  concerning  his
promotability in relation to his peers. (Exhibit B)

The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent OPR profile:

                   PERIOD ENDINGS            OVERALL EVALUATION


      1 Mar 05             MEETS STANDARDS (MS)

                    1 Mar 04                       MS
                    8 Apr 03                       MS
      4 Jun 02                       MS
      4 Jun 01                       MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO states in part that the applicant
entered active duty as a captain or 3 October 1996 with a  DOR  of  28
December 1990 and based on his DOR, he was eligible to meet the  CY97C
Major Board as an IPZ eligible.

According to DPPPO the eligibility  requirements  to  meet  the  CY97C
Major Board was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF)  on
18 February 1997.  Per SecAF guidance and AFI 36-2501,  dated  1 March
1996, Attachment 2, paragraph A2.5.3, Promotion  Ineligibility,  “Have
not been on extended active  duty  at  least  six  consecutive  months
immediately before the central board’s convening date.  Exceptions are
nonline first lieutenants being considered for captain and MC  and  DC
captains being considered for major,”   There  were  no  separate  EAD
requirements in place for officers returning to active duty under  the
Voluntary Recall Program at that time.  Applicant entered active  duty
on 3 October 1996 and the board convened 16 June 1997.  Applicant  had
at least six months on active duty  and  was  therefore  eligible  for
promotion by the CY97C Major Board.

DPPPO states the applicant is applying  today’s  EAD  requirements  as
written in AFI 36-2501, Attachment 2, paragraph A2.5.3, dated  10 July
2004 to a board that  convened  on  16  June  1997.   The  eligibility
criteria for the 16 June 1997 board  was  contained  in  AFI  36-2501,
Attachment 2, paragraph A2.5.3, dated 1  March  1996.   Based  on  the
policies in place at the time the applicant entered  active  duty,  he
was eligible to meet the CY97C major  board  with  only  9  months  on
active duty.  The policy he contends he should have been boarded under
was clearly not in effect at the time of his board.  Therefore, he was
properly  considered  for  promotion  to  both  major  and  lieutenant
colonel.

The DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he did not have access to the  previous  AFI  36-
2501, dated 1 March 1996, which did not address the same  EAD/time  of
active requirement as newer version dated 16 July 2004.   He  believes
it is obvious the Air  Force  Personnel  Center  rewrote  the  AFI  to
reflect the discrepancy in the promotion system.  It was  apparent  to
the SecAF and HQ USAF/DPF of a very low promotion  rate  for  officers
returning to active duty and not receiving a DP on their PRF.  .

He states that although he returned to active duty in October 1996, he
did not report to his first duty assignment until January  1997.   His
unit was directed to write an OPR and a PRF on him with less  than  45
days on station.  He reemphasizes he only had 69 days  of  supervision
prior to the CY97 promotion board.

The applicant disagrees with the OPR’s comment that  he  was  selected
for major in the CY98 Board and the Board does not have  knowledge  of
him being passed over.  He first states that  the  fact  that  he  was
selected to major in the above-the-zone Board CY98, has no bearing  on
his request to correct his records and should  be  stricken  from  the
record of discussion.  Second, there  are  numerous  indicators  in  a
passed over officer’s record.

He concludes by stating his career path has been  non-traditional  and
the AFI does not allow flexibility.  At no time has  he  asked  for  a
direct promotion, but this  may  be  an  issue  for  consideration  to
prevent any institutional bias.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 an  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we are not persuaded by the evidence presented in support  of
his appeal that he wrongly considered for promotion by the CY97  Major
Board.  In this  regard,  we  note  that,  in  accordance  with  SECAF
guidance and AFI 36-2501, dated 1 March 1996, he was eligible to  meet
the CY97C major board with only 9 months on active duty.   The  policy
the applicant contends he should have boarded under was not in  effect
at the time of this Board.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions  and
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and
adopt its rationale as the 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  issue(s)   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 Docket  Number  BC-2006-
00661 in Executive Session on 25 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson III, Panel Chair
            Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
            Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Feb 06.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 3 Apr 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 06, w/atchs.






                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair