RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01707
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 November 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) considered  by  the  CY06A  (15  May
2006) (P0606A) Colonel Central Selection Board  (CSB)  be  replaced  with  a
corrected PRF provided with this application, and that she  meet  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to colonel.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The original PRF did not include the fact that she  was  promoted  two-years
Below-the-Promotion-Zone (BPZ) to major, one of  her  biggest  successes  in
her 18-year career.

Her BPZ promotion was not available to the P0606A CSB in that it was not  in
any of the records that met the board,  to  include  the  Officer  Selection
Brief (OSB), and AFPC has stated the PRF is the  proper  location  for  this
information.  They also advised  her  that  the  PRF  omission  of  her  BPZ
promotion to major most likely sent an inadvertent negative  signal  to  any
board member that did the math and realized an  early  promotion  must  have
taken place.

Being promoted early to major, combined with the fact  she  was  both  “late
rated” (did not go to pilot training as a second  lieutenant)  and  “banked”
(sent to a staff  tour  for  three  years  following  graduation  from  UPT)
resulted in her being “shut out” of the normal  aviator  job  track.   After
being promoted to major, she was not permitted to  gain  the  usual  aviator
experience as a company grade officer (CGO)  because  these  positions  were
not appropriate for  field  grade  officers  (FGO),  and  this  was  further
exasperated by the negative view of her leadership concerning her  pregnancy
at the time.

Being “late rated”, “banked” for three years, “promoted early”, and sent  to
Air Command and Staff College in-residence for a year also meant that  there
was no legal way for her to gain the expected staff tour  as  an  FGO.   Her
lack of typical career progression and not filling a “staff  tour”  was  not
due to poor performance,  but  due  to  exceptional  performance.   She  was
competitively selected to  attend  pilot  training  after  joining  the  Air
Force, and was competitively  selected  for  promotion  two-years  BPZ.   It
seems that this early  promotion  explains  volumes  and  should  have  been
included in her PRF.

The  BPZ  promotion  to  major  explains  “gaps”  in   normal   professional
development.  AFPC and other senior  personnel  that  reviewed  her  records
advised her that her non-traditional career path and lack of staff  duty  as
an FGO may have been the reason for her non-selection  to  colonel,  a  fact
that is explained by her early promotion.  The BPZ also  stratified  her  as
the top 1% of her year group, a significant strat  {sic}  missing  from  her
records.

In support of her appeal, she has provided copies of a  personal  statement,
dated 23 May  2007,  a  corrected  PRF  changing  comments  in  Section  IV,
Promotion Recommendation, her “As Met” records, an AF IMT  948,  Application
for Correction/Removal of Evaluation  Report,  dated  12  December  2006,  a
memorandum from the senior rater, dated 21 November 2006, a memorandum  from
the MLR President, dated 6 December  2006,  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 23 March 2007, and a  memorandum  from  SAF/IG,
dated 17 May 2007.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was a non-select by the CY06A (15 May 2006)  (P0606A)  In-the-
Promotion-Zone Colonel CSB; however, she was selected by the CY07A (9  April
2007) (P0607A) Above-the-Promotion-Zone Colonel CSB.  She  filed  an  appeal
with the ERAB to substitute a corrected PRF  which  was  disapproved  on  23
March 2007.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  Although  the  applicant  contends  that  the
information pertaining to her 2-years BPZ to major was not available to  the
promotion board and, as such, the  explanation  for  “gaps”  in  her  normal
professional development and her stratification as being in the  top  1%  of
her year group  was  missing,  this  does  not  negate  the  fact  that  the
information was available to the senior rater (SR)  in  preparation  of  the
PRF.  AFI 36-2406, paragraph 8.3.2.5.2  states  “…In  all  cases,  a  senior
rater has the final authority to determine the content of  the  PRFs  he  or
she prepares…”  Also, paragraph 8.1.4.1 states “The Senior Rater  is  solely
responsible for evaluating each officer’s Record  of  Performance  and  Duty
Qualification History brief.”  In the applicant’s case, the SR did not  deem
it  necessary  to  comment  on  the  previous  BPZ   selection   to   major.
Additionally, she was given a copy of the PRF  approximately  30 days  prior
to the CSB and is charged with reviewing the PRF for accuracy.   The  bottom
of the PRF states to the officer “Prior to your board  convening  date,  you
must contact your senior rater to discuss  if  your  PRF  is  not  accurate,
omits pertinent information or  has  an  error.”   Applicant  has  given  no
indication that this omission was brought to the attention of the  SR  prior
to the board convening date.

IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 8.5, “A PRF is considered a  working  copy  until
the start of  the  CSB.”   Paragraph  8.5  also  establishes  procedures  to
correct any information in the content of the PRF prior to the  CSB.   There
is no indication that such a correction  was  requested.   Furthermore,  the
applicant could also have addressed the possible omission  directly  to  the
CSB, but failed to do so.

A PRF is not erroneous or unfair because a member  believes  it  contributed
to a non-selection for  promotion.   The  simple  willingness  of  a  SR  to
rewrite a PRF to include previously known  information  should  not  be  the
basis  for   correction.    Competition   for   promotion   is   keen   and,
unfortunately, all eligibles cannot be  selected  because  of  Congressional
constraints.  The fact is that  for each promotion  board,  there  are  many
more highly qualified  officers  competing  for  promotion  than  there  are
promotions available.   Consequently,  non-selection  does  not  necessarily
indicate the applicant was not qualified  or  not  deserving  of  promotion.
Rather, in the board’s judgment, her peers demonstrated  greater  capability
to perform duties and assume the responsibilities of the next higher grade.

While the PRF may not have included information which  the  applicant  seems
to feel was vital, the selection board  had  her  entire  Officer  Selection
Record that clearly outlined her accomplishments since the day she  came  on
active duty.  The OSB listed her service dates which  would  show  that  she
was commissioned two years after the main body of eligibles, indicating  she
had an early promotion; thus, the information was available to the CSB.   In
addition, she was not the only officer affected by the  “banking”  of  pilot
trainees.  Anyone selected for pilot training at the same  time  would  have
been banked and met similar career challenges.

They recommend denial as the information was known to the applicant as  well
as the SR prior to the CSB,  and  was  available  to  the  CSB  due  to  the
visibility of her service dates.  Based on  this,  they  find  no  basis  to
grant SSB consideration.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant took issue with the AFPC advisory, stating that  although  her
official SURF contains her 2-year-BPZ promotion to  major  information,  she
was unaware that it would be “masked” from her records during the CSB.

The applicant contends that the omission of her BPZ to major in her PRF  was
an oversight by her SR.  When she became aware that her BPZ information  was
masked during the CSB, she contacted her SR who wrote a new PRF  to  include
this information, and wrote a memo to AFPC requesting that her records  meet
an SSB.  If his actions to omit the BPZ were intentional, he would not  have
done this, and had she been aware that the BPZ promotion  information  would
be masked from her records during the CSB, she would have contacted  her  SR
and requested this information be included in her PRF.

The applicant contends that she did not realize a correction  was  necessary
and did not address this to the CSB as it was  her  understanding  that  her
SURF was a key document that met a CSB, that the SURF was the  next  primary
document after the PRF  that  the  CSB  reviewed,  and  that  if  there  was
information in the SURF that would not be available to the CSB, it would  be
announced.  Since her SURF correctly depicted her BPZ information,  she  did
not feel that there was a correction that needed  to  be  addressed  to  the
CSB.

The applicant states her SR  re-wrote  the  PRF  because  he  believed  this
information should have been available to the CSB.  She  contends  that  she
was one of only 3 candidates with a promotion  recommendation  of  “P”  that
were selected for promotion to the grade of  colonel  above-the-zone  during
the CY07A (P0607A) CSB, and that her records did  not  significantly  change
from her  P0606A  non-selection.   In  her  opinion,  the  most  significant
difference in her records is that her PRF considered by  her  above-the-zone
CSB included the BPZ information.

The applicant contends that to state that other banked pilots met  the  same
career challenges is simply not true.  She contends she was the  only  “late
rated” officer banked from her UPT class, and is confident she is  the  only
rated officer that was late rated,  banked,  and  then  promoted  two  years
early.  She contends she lost out on 8  years,  and  that  the  majority  of
banked pilots would have had more than 5 years to serve in the cockpit as  a
CGO versus her less than one year opportunity.  The moment she was  promoted
to major (less than a year from being assigned her first aircraft), she  was
pulled from holding a key learning position as the duties were  CGO  duties,
and with only one year as  an  operational  pilot,  she  did  not  have  the
necessary experience to fill FGO positions.   Additionally,  her  2-year-BPZ
promotion guaranteed that  she  would  not  have  the  opportunity  to  hold
“staff” positions as an FGO prior to her primary zone promotion to colonel.

She closes by contending  that  competition  for  promotion  should  include
providing the CSB with  all  relevant  information,  that  the  individual’s
entire performance should be considered, and that it is unclear to  her  why
BPZ information is masked from the CSB.  It is  a  fact  that  she  was  not
aware that her BPZ information would be masked to the CSB and, had she  been
aware this would be the case, she would have  ensured  that  her  PRF  would
have been re-written to include this data.

Applicant’s complete response 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  changing  the  PRF
prepared for the CY06A, P0606A, Colonel CSB.  The applicant’s senior  rater,
SAF/IG, and the MLR President for  the  CY06A,  P0606A,  Colonel  CSB,  have
acknowledged that an error was made in the PRF that was  prepared  for,  and
considered by, the CSB.  They have recommended the PRF be replaced with  the
PRF contained in  this  application  and  that  the  applicant  receive  SSB
consideration with the corrected PRF.  Given  the  strong  command  support,
the Board is not convinced that her 2-year  early  promotion  to  major  and
unusual  duty  history  were  explicitly  stated  anywhere  in  her  records
considered by the P0606A CSB.  While the Board cannot determine what  impact
this corrected PRF would have had on the outcome of the CSB,  the  Board  is
persuaded she may have been deprived of full  and  fair  consideration.   In
view of the above, and in order to resolve any injustice and allow  the  SSB
to perform a  complete  and  accurate  assessment,  we  recommend  that  her
records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to the APPLICANT be corrected to  show  that  the  Promotion  Recommendation
Form (PRF), AF Form 709,  prepared  for  the  Calendar  Year  2006A  (CY06A)
Central Colonel Selection Board  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  her
records, and the attached PRF reflecting  the  third  line  in  Section  IV,
Promotion Recommendation, “Superb record!  2 yrs BPZ to Maj,  2x  CGOY,  SOS
“Outstanding Contributor,” & 2x Jaycee’s 10 OYA  nominee”  be  accepted  for
file in its place.

It is further recommended that her record, to include the attached  PRF,  be
considered for promotion to the grade of  colonel  by  a  Special  Selection
Board for the CY06A Central Colonel Selection Board.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2007-01707
in Executive Session on 17 October 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
                       Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Aug 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 07.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 2007-01707




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year
2006A (CY06A) Central Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from her records, and the attached PRF reflecting the
third line in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, “Superb record!  2 yrs
BPZ to Maj, 2x CGOY, SOS “Outstanding Contributor,” & 2x Jaycee’s 10 OYA
nominee” be accepted for file in its place.

      It is further directed that her record, to include the attached PRF,
be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection
Board for the CY06A Central Colonel Selection Board.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
PRF