RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00666
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
      X     COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 AUG 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be given Special Selection Board  (SSB)  consideration  by  the
Calendar Year 2004B (CY04B) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

2.  He be given SSB consideration by the Calendar  Year  2005  Colonel
CSB  with  a  new  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)   indicating
“definitely promote” (DP) rather than “promote”.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied promotion  by  the  CY04  CSB,  because  the  board  was
improperly  cued  as  to  who  the  favorites  were.   He  received  a
definitely promote but was passed over anyway.  He believes  the  2005
PRF recommendation of promote as opposed to DP  is  inconsistent  with
his service record and previous PRF recommendation.  He  believes  the
promotion system is corrupt.

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submitted  a  personal
statement, two AF IMT Forms 709, Promotion Recommendation, a  copy  of
an anonymous fax and excerpts from his military personnel record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Reserves  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.  He was nonselected for promotion by the CY04A and
CY05A Colonel CSBs.

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

                   PERIOD ENDINGS            OVERALL EVALUATION


      19 Jun 05             MEETS STANDARDS (MS)

                    19 Jun 04                       MS
                    19 Jun 03                       MS
      19 Jun 02                       MS
      19 Jun 01                       MS
      19 Jun 00                       MS
      19 Jun 99                       MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPB recommends denial.  DPB states a PRF  signed  by  the  senior
rater of record, is used by a promotion  board  as  one  of  the  many
factors  in  evaluating  the  whole  person  for  recommendation   for
promotion.  The most important item in the  selection  record  is  the
actual Officer Performance Reports (OPRs).  Every OPR ever prepared on
an officer is available to and reviewed by a promotion board.  The PRF
only  represents  the  senior  rater’s   opinion   of   the   relative
promotability of the one officer  reported  on,  and  the  recommended
relative order of promotablity among those officers the  senior  rater
reports on.  In this case one of the PRFs ranked the  applicant  1/1/2
out of 2 officers rated, and commented that “this one was  my  #1  and
received the only DP awarded by me.”  It  in  no  way  represents  the
overall ranking within the Judge Advocate General (JAG) corps, or even
the opinion of the USAF/JA.  In the end, only the promotion board  can
make a final determination and recommendation to the Secretary of  the
Air Force concerning which  officers  considered  for  promotion,  may
actually be  promoted.   Both  PRFs  in  question  were  prepared  and
presented to  the  appropriate  promotion  boards.   The  opinion  and
recommendation by each senior rater  represents  that  senior  rater’s
ranking of each individual at that point in time.  As the PRF is  only
an opinion on the relative promotability of any  officer  within  that
senior rater’s sphere of influence, actual in-board promotion  ranking
is based on the (OPRs) prepared by many different  raters,  additional
raters and reviewers.  If the applicant believes an  investigation  is
needed, he may contact the  Inspector  General  (IG)  and  begin  that
process.

The DPB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that his 2005 PRF recommendation of “promote”  as
opposed to “DP” is inconsistent not only with his service  record  and
previous PRF, but also with his senior rater’s concurrent  evaluation.
That concurrent evaluation appears in the body of the PRF in  question
and  his  most  recent  OPR.   The  documents  contain   nothing   but
superlatives and those superlatives do not by any means overstate  his
current and previous raters’  comments  of  record  made  consistently
throughout his career.  Racking and stacking  of  promotion  files  to
identify the personal and/or corporate favorites of those  in  current
positions of authority runs counter  to  the  effort  to  ensure  that
promotions are made  on  merit  alone.   Consideration  for  promotion
should be limited to  hard  information  on  career  performance,  and
should strive  to  eliminate  any  factor  which  tends  against  that
limitation.  He asks the Board to  disapprove  the  accomplishment  of
“racking and stacking” for the 2004 promotion board  by  and  under  a
sitting JAG who clearly had no qualms about the  illegitimate  use  of
the prerogatives of his office in the service of  a  corrupt  personal
agenda.  No IG investigation is necessary to establish  this  failure.
Publicly available reports have demonstrated the  profound  compromise
of  the  former  JAG’s  motivations  for  positioning  one   promotion
candidate over another.  The fundamental corruption of  the  promotion
system as it applied to candidates before the 2004 board could not  be
clearer, and that corruption  is  enough  to  warrant  revisiting  the
promotion decisions made by that board.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/JAA recommends denial.  JAA states  the  applicant  has  failed  to
demonstrate the existence of any error nor to did he present any facts
or circumstances supporting his assertion  that  he  has  suffered  an
injustice.    The   Applicant’s   contention   his   2005    promotion
recommendation should have reflected the same  recommendation  as  his
2004 promotion recommendation from a different senior rater is without
merit.  No law, regulation, or directive requires a senior rater,  let
alone different senior raters in different years, to provide the  same
promotion recommendation from past years to a  Selection  Board.   The
applicant has provided no information the recommendation by  his  2005
senior rater was made for  an  improper  reason,  other  than  it  was
different from his 2004 senior rater’s recommendation.  Senior  Raters
make promotion recommendations based on their review  and  conclusions
about a promotion eligible officer’s record  relative  to  records  of
performance of other personnel they are rating for the same  Selection
Board, and not based on a “formula”.

The JAA complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states in part that his position in this proceeding does
acknowledge the common understanding that the Judge  Advocate  General
hierarchy like any other,  flags  or  cues  promotion  boards  to  its
favorites  for  promotion.   He  contests  that  his  senior   rater’s
recommendation of “promote” as  opposed  to  “definitely  promote”  is
inconsistent not only with his entire record, but with her own remarks
about his performance.  The effect of this lukewarm recommendation was
to destroy his prospects for promotion by the
2005 board.  When viewed alongside his record of performance,  it  was
such an aberration that it should be disregarded and excised as such.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and the documentation provided by the applicant, no
evidence has been presented  by  the  applicant  to  substantiate  his
claim.  We do not  find  his  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by  the  Air  Force.   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.   In  the
absence of 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-
00666 in Executive Session on 16  November  2006  and  on  11 December
2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

            Mr. James L. Sommer, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 29 Mar 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Apr 06.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Jun 06.
      Exhibit G. Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 6 Sep 06.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 06.
      Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Oct 06.







                                   MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                   Panel Chair