RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03466
		INDEX CODE:  131.00, 134.00
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Any data on his officer selection brief (OSB) or other documents 
used in promotion boards that indicates or implies he had 
applied for and/or been approved for retirement be removed. 

He be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of 
colonel by the CY07A (9 Apr 07) Colonel Central Selection Board 
(CSB).

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes verbal mention of or displaying data during 
promotion boards that indicates whether a member has applied for 
retirement is unjust.  Also verbal mention of an application for 
or an approved retirement should not be allowed during promotion 
boards.

He believes that during his Biomedical Science Corps (BSC) 
Colonel Promotion Board held in Apr 07, there was a potential 
for unfair bias.  He believes that officers who had applied for 
retirement may have been judged as not exhibiting as much 
loyalty to the Air Force and military service as those who had 
not applied for retirement. Therefore, those officers who had 
applied for retirement were scored lower by promotion board 
members than those who had not applied for retirement, thereby 
ultimately resulting in his non-selection.

In support of his request, the applicant provided statements and 
a copy of his promotion recommendation form (PRF) from the 2007 
(BSC) Colonel Promotion Board showing receipt of a Definitely 
Promote (DP) rating.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Jul 86 and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel on     
1 Apr 02.

The applicant applied for voluntary retirement and had an 
approved date of separation of 3 Jul 07.

The applicant met and was non-selected below-the-zone (BPZ) by 
the CY07A Colonel Central Selection Board held on 9 Apr 07.

Other relevant facts are contained in the AFPC/DPSOO opinion at 
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial.  The applicant applied for 
voluntary retirement and had an approved date of separation 
(DOS) of 31 Jul 07.  Because the DOS was approved prior to the 
board convening date, it was updated on his selection brief.  
Board members are not instructed, nor is there a policy that 
promotions should be considered only for those remaining in the 
service.  

The fact that officers are selected every board with a DOS 
reflected on their OSF is proof that eligible officers are 
looked at without prejudice or partiality.  Board members take 
an oath to act in the best interest of the Air Force and are 
charged with using the whole-person concept when assessing each 
officer’s record.  While it is true that the DOS is part of the 
OSB, there is no set “criteria” for promotion.

Eligible officers meeting CSBs are given officer promotion 
briefs (OPBs) prior to the board.  The OPB contains the same 
data that will appear on the OSB at the central board.  
Furthermore, the instructions attached to the OPB explain each 
data element and what will be reflected in those areas.  The 
instructions state “An established DOS and DOS reasons are 
displayed on the OSB if approved prior to the board convening 
date.”  Therefore, the applicant was aware that his retirement 
would be displayed for the board to take into consideration when 
reviewing his record for promotion.

Eligible officers meeting a board have the option to submit a 
letter to the board president addressing any matter of record 
concerning themselves that they believe is important to their 
consideration for promotion.  As such, the applicant could have 
written a letter to the board members of his intent to withdraw 
his retirement if selected for promotion to colonel. 

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant restates his contention that there may have been 
unfair bias because his application for retirement was displayed 
on his OSB and could have resulted in board members scoring his 
records lower than those who had not applied for retirement.

He contends that the statement made by AFPC/DPSOO regarding 
officer selections is false.  Having officers selected for 
promotion with a DOS on their OSB is not proof that there is no 
bias against those with a DOS on the OSB.  It is likely that few 
officers are selected for promotion with a DOS reflected on 
their OSB.  For example, if 50 percent of those eligible are 
selected for promotion but only 10 percent of those with a DOS 
on their OSB are selected, then this would indicate that there 
could be an unfair bias against officers with the DOS on their 
OSB even though officers with an established DOS were selected.  

The applicant states that in his BSC Colonel Board, he knows of 
no other officers who had applied for retirement and had an 
established DOS on their OSB who were selected for promotion.  
He states he did not imply that there was a set “criteria” for 
promotion for those with a DOS on their OSB.  

He did think about writing a letter to the board after he 
received the Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.  He states 
he sought the advice of senior officers on this matter, 
including the general officer who signed the promotion 
recommendation form. The advice was that writing a letter to the 
board would draw unneeded attention to the DOS on his OSB which 
may have gone unnoticed if a letter to the board had not been 
written.  He states that it seems unjust to him that he would 
even need to think about writing a letter to the board to 
explain a DOS on his OSB or state he would apply to withdraw his 
retirement if selected for promotion.

The applicant states that the DPSOO recommendation in his case 
is unfounded in that DPSOO has not provided any evidence that 
there is no injustice or bias against officers who have a DOS on 
their OSB, and they do not explain why in his case, with a DP 
recommendation, he was non-selected, while those that did not 
have a DP recommendation and had not applied for retirement were 
selected for promotion.

The applicant’s complete submission 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 error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's 
complete submission, we are not persuaded that his 
uncorroborated assertion of promotion board bias towards those 
officers with established dates of separation, in and by itself, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by 
the Air Force.  He has not provided any hard evidence to support 
his contentions.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision 
that he has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered 
either an error or injustice.  Therefore, 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-
2007-03466 in Executive Session on 20 February 2008, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
	Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Oct 08.
    Exhibit B.  Officer Selection Record.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPSOO Memorandum, dated 3 Dec 07.
    Exhibit D.  SAF/MRBR Letter, w/atch, dated 4 Jan 08.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 22 Jan 08.




                                      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                      Panel Chair