RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01907
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year 2006C
(CY06C) Colonel Central Selection  Board  be  corrected  to  show  his
assignment to Al Udeid AB, Qatar, in the  “Deployment  History”  block
and he be considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  colonel  by  a
Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His in-the-primary zone (IPZ) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF)  for
the CY06C board contained a “Definitely Promote” (DP)  recommendation.
Fourteen of fifteen Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) with IPZ DP’s  were
promoted.  Historically, since 1989, 173 of 174 IPZ JAG  officers  who
received a DP recommendation have been promoted  (excluding  himself).
He understands a DP is not  a  guarantee  of  promotion,  but  as  the
statistics he presents indicate, it was enough  of  an  aberration  to
cause him to closely  review  his  “As  Met”  records  and  file  this
application for an SSB, based on incomplete information in his Officer
Selection Brief (OSB).   His  OSB  did  not  indicate  any  deployment
history in the separate “Deployment History” block.  He believes  this
was an error as he deployed in a permanent  change  of  station  (PCS)
capacity to Al Udeid AB from July 2005 to July 2006.   The  Air  Force
Personnel Center (AFPC) informed him his assignment to Al Udeid AB was
considered a PCS and was therefore not reflected as  a  deployment  on
his OSB.  He believes this information was provided to him based on  a
misunderstanding of the rules and provides an erroneous picture to the
board.  He believes those personnel  who  PCS  to  Southwest  Asia  in
support of combat operations should have their  OSB’s  highlighted  in
the same manner that those  who  deploy  in  a  temporary  duty  (TDY)
capacity do.  In order to give the board an accurate  picture  of  his
deployment history, his OSB should have  specifically  referenced  his
assignment to Al Udeid AB under the “Deployment History” block of  his
OSB as is done for officers who have served in a deployed  TDY  status
for up to a year.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, copies of several Officer Performance Reports  (OPRs),  and
documentation extracted from his personnel record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is  currently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade  effective  and  with  a
date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 2002.  He was considered and  was  not
selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the (CY06C) (28  Nov
06) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO states the applicants request  to
include his PCS assignment to Al Udeid  Air  Base  in  the  deployment
history section is unfounded.  As stated  in  the  Military  Personnel
Flight  Memorandum (MPFM) 05-55, dated 13 December 2005, only TDY Type
1, Contingency/rotational,  or  Type  2,  Exercise  Deployments,   are
displayed in the  deployment  history  section.   Therefore,  his  PCS
assignment is not authorized to be reflected in the deployment section
of his CY06C OSB.  His PCS to Al Udeid AB was not  only  reflected  in
his 14 April 2006 OPR, it was also reflected in the assignment history
block of the OSB.  Board members  were  therefore  able  to  take  his
assignment to Al Udeid AB  into  consideration  during  the  promotion
selection process.

DPPPO’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
27 July 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion of a lack of a  deployment
history on his OSB and the apparent fact that he is the  only  one  of
fifteen Judge Advocates who was not promoted, sufficiently  persuasive
to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.   The  statistics
he provides were presented  with  no  firm  evidence  showing  a  link
between his nonselection for promotion and an absence of a  deployment
history.  Especially since it appears information  pertaining  to  his
assignment to Al Udeid AB and the duties performed was  available  for
consideration by  the  selection  board  members.   Additionally,  his
contention that selection boards consider records that show  TDY’s  to
an area of responsibility (AOR)  more  favorably  than  those  showing
PCS’s  to  an  AOR  has  not  been  supported  by  evidence  of  such.
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  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of proof of  having  suffered  either  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   issues   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-01907 in Executive  Session  on  20  September  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. James L. Sommer, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-01907:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 June 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 8 July 2007, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 July 2007.



                                   CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY
                                   Panel Chair