RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01884
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXX
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 DECEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She  be  directly  promoted  to  the  grade  of  major,  and  in   the
alternative, she be allowed to meet a Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)
for the Calendar Year CY05B  (CY05B)  Major  Central  Selection  Board
(CSB) with a letter to the board president.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is appealing the promotion selection board's decision because  she
believes her record on which the decision was based, was misleading as
to many relevant facts and circumstances. This resulted in  an  unjust
outcome. After learning she was passed over, she  received  non-select
counseling from  an  Air  Force  Personnel  Center  (AFPC)  non-select
counselor. Since she is not aware of the exact methodology  the  board
used in reviewing her record, she  can  only  assume  she  was  denied
promotion based on the information provided to her by this  non-select
counselor.

In support of her application, applicant submits copies of a  personal
statement, Officer Selection Brief, data verification brief, Promotion
Recommendation  Form,  Letter  of  Evaluation,   Officer   Performance
Reports, Awards and Decorations, Military Education documents, letters
from raters and colleagues, email, and letters of appreciation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of captain with a
date of rank of 1 March 2000.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of captain by the CY05B Major Central Selection Board.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) as a captain from  2000
through 2005 reflect “meets standards” in all performance factors.

On 24 February  2004,  the  applicant  filed  an  appeal  through  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation  Reports,  which  was
denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial and stated the applicant does not appear
to request the board to correct her records. She appears to be  asking
the AFBCMR to overturn the decision of the promotion  board.  She  has
not proven anything in her record was inaccurate, just "misunderstood"
by an entire panel of senior Air Force leaders.

AFPC/DPPPE complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO  recommended  denial  and  stated   insufficient   relevant
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice. The results of the original CY05 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 officer may be qualified for promotion, she  may  not  be
the best qualified  of  other  eligible  officers  competing  for  the
limited number of promotion vacancies in the judgment of the selection
board vested with discretionary authority  to  make  such  selections.
Furthermore, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all  other
officers who have  extremely  competitive  records  but  did  not  get
promoted. DPPPO does not support direct promotion.

AFPC/DPPPO complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommended denial and stated  the  applicant  has  failed  to
prove any error or injustice.  What the BCMR process does  provide  is
the authority to correct an error or injustice in a  member's  record.
Yet the applicant does not point to any errors in her record;  rather,
she alleges the entire record is "misleading" and  was  misinterpreted
by the selection board. She bases this theory on her belief  that  the
selection board must have followed the same point by point analysis as
that offered by the nonselect counseling she  received  from  AFPC/JA.
Not surprisingly, she has offered no proof of  this.  Every  nonselect
counseling offered by this office is made  with  a  strong  caveat  up
front that the observations of the  counselor  represent  his  or  her
opinions and nothing more. The counselor certainly does not speak  for
the selection board, nor does that  person's  opinion  constitute  any
kind of official rationale  or  explanation  of  a  promotion  board's
result. Consequently, applicant's point by point  quibbling  with  the
observations offered by the counselor is irrelevant to the accuracy of
her record or the validity of the selection board process. In  effect,
applicant has used the nonselect counseling as a basis  to  set  up  a
straw man target and then proceed with an analysis designed  to  knock
it down. Unfortunately for her, in so doing, she has failed  to  prove
any error or injustice in her record or any  error  by  the  selection
board in its consideration and action on the record.

AFPC/JA complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  stated  she  has
demonstrated that she has been the victim of  injustice,  not  because
her record had documentary errors, but  because  it  lacked  important
facts which caused the promotion board to misinterpret it. Taking into
account all the preceding information, clearly, the  board's  decision
not to promote her was unjust. To appropriately remedy this injustice,
she requests direct promotion to major as if she was promoted  by  the
CY05 promotion board. In the alternative, she requests that  the  same
record that met the CY05B meet a Special Selection Board with a letter
from her explaining the missing facts and circumstances.

Furthermore, the AFPC non-select counselor was not a  "straw  man"  as
AFPC/JA alleged. AFPC/JA analysis is disingenuous because they require
her to provide evidence than they know she will  most  likely  not  be
able to gather. In this case, she was not able to  gather  any  actual
evidence of what the Selection Board considered. The  only  member  to
respond to her inquiry responded exactly as she  was  instructed.  Col
M__ responded, " I believe there is a POC for the JAC corps  at  AFPC.
She thinks her best bet is to contact  them."  For  this  reason,  she
should disregard AFPC/JA's analysis and she should give the non-select
counselors's advice the same weight as if it had  come  directly  from
the board member's themselves.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the  evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded the applicant’s records are in  error  or
unjust.  The  applicant’s  contentions  are  noted;  however,  in  our
opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate  Air  Force
offices adequately address those allegations.  In  this  respect,  the
Board notes the Air Force indicates the  applicant  is  requesting  no
change to her selection records and there are no grounds  for  an  SSB
consideration. Therefore, we agree with opinions  and  recommendations
of the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for the 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.

________________________________________________________________

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-
01884 in Executive Session on 7 December 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. BJ White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-
01884 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 7 Aug 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 Aug 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 25 Aug 06.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Sep 06.
      Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Sep 06.





      BJ WHITE-OLSON
                                        Panel Chair