RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02034
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her results from the  Fiscal  Year  2008  (FY08)  United  States  Air  Force
Reserve (USAFR) Major Promotion Board be reversed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was a top notch participator during her career in the Reserves  and  the
Guard, receiving numerous awards, including  "Most  Outstanding  Aviator  in
the State of  New  Jersey".   Despite  her  exemplary  record  she  was  not
promoted by the Fiscal Year 2007 Majors Board.  Based on the  negligence  of
the recruiter and erroneous information provided by the  leadership  in  the
squadron, she did  not  get  in-processed  by  the  time  the  FY08  Reserve
Promotion Board convened, nor did she receive the waiver  she  was  promised
when  she  did  not  get  promoted.   Although  she  wanted  a  Category   A
(Traditional Unit Program, assigned to USAFR  units)  flying  position,  her
top priority was to be promoted so she  could  continue  with  her  military
career.  Because of the misinformation  she  relied  on  and  the  resulting
delay, she is now in a position where she cannot do so.

In support of her request, the applicant  provided  a  personal  memorandum;
supporting memorandums; ANGI 36-2005,  Appointment  In  Commissioned  Grades
And Designation And Assignment In Professional Categories,  Reserve  Of  The
Air Force And United  States  Air  Force.   Her  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant was commissioned in  February  1991.   In  February
2007, the applicant was considered but was not selected  for  promotion  by
the FY08 Reserve Major Promotion Board.  This was her  second  nonselection
for promotion to major.  She is currently in the USAFR serving in the grade
of captain, with a date of rank of 1 November 1998.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ CAANG/A1P states they cannot determine if the issues  the  applicant  has
taken exception to had any effect on her  deferral  for  promotion.   It  is
likely that the promotion board reviewed  her  master  record  which  likely
included a Promotion Recommendation Form, Officer Performance  Reports,  and
copies of awards and decorations earned, prior  to  making  their  decision.
Although administrative delays may have occurred during  the  processing  of
her appointment package, it is ultimately this  most  recent  deferral  that
kept her from being appointed in the CAANG.  Incidentally, with  experienced
pilots being difficult to recruit and retain, it was disappointing to  loose
the opportunity to appoint her.  Based on her experience, continued  service
could benefit the United States Air Force and the Air National  Guard  (ANG)
to a great degree.

The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit B.

NGB/A1POP states the applicant was deferred for promotion by the  Air  Force
Reserves; therefore, there is no response the Air National  Guard  can  make
regarding her request.  Her request for the deferral to be  removed  has  to
be addressed by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC).

The complete A1POP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

NGB/A1POF  recommends  denial.   A1POF  states  because  the  applicant  was
deferred for promotion by the Air Force Reserves, the ANG  has  no  response
for her request.  Despite the best efforts of all involved,  the  CAANG  was
unable to appoint her prior to the FY08 Air Force Reserve  promotion  board.
The results of the board revealed the applicant received a  second  deferral
for promotion, which rendered her ineligible for appointment into  the  ANG.
A1POF concurs with A1POP and A1P's advisory.  The NGB  cannot  retroactively
appoint her in the ANG.

The complete A1POF evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating  she  requests  the  SSB  consider  her  for
promotion to the grade of major.  After she learned  she  was  deferred  for
promotion to major after her first board, she contacted ARPC  for  promotion
board counseling.  The counselor reviewed  her  package  and  indicated  the
main reason she was passed over was because she was in a  Category  E  (Non-
Pay  Programs,  ndividual  Ready  Reserve  Program)  position,  a   category
position they seldom promote.  The counselor recommended  she  apply  for  a
Category  A  or  Category  B,  (Individual  Mobilization   Augmentee   (IMA)
position). Although she had already applied for  several  flying  positions,
she started aggressively looking for a Category A position,  including  non-
flying jobs.  Had she accepted any one of the positions she was  offered  at
the 163rd Reconnaissance Wing (163 RW), California ANG, she would  not  have
been in the Category E position at the time the second board  convened.   If
her recruiter had followed the guidelines of ANGI 36-2005, and  submitted  a
Class II Returning to flying physical with her application  she  would  have
been  appointed  in  the  California  ANG  before  the  FY08  Reserve  Major
Selection Board convened.  Also, if  the  leader  of  the  163  RW  did  not
repeatedly assure her that she would receive a waiver if  she  did  not  get
promoted she would have accepted another Category A position offered to  her
once she realized  that  the  flying  physical  error  was  made.   She  did
everything possible to ensure promotion on her second board to major so  she
could continue to serve in the military.  After the ARPC counseling  session
and discussions with her rater, she spent  the  majority  of  her  available
time looking for a Category A position that would also utilize her  tactical
experience.  She also chose a squadron and  position  that  promised  her  a
promotion.  However; she would not  have  selected  this  position  in  this
squadron had it not ensured promotion.  Based on the errors  and  negligence
on the part of the recruiter and the leadership at  the  163rd  RW  she  was
placed in the very situation she was trying to avoid.  She ended up  meeting
the promotion board in the same Category E position as the first board.   As
to be expected, she was not promoted.  She is a seasoned aviator  with  both
heavy and fighter aircraft experience and has so  much  to  offer  with  her
experience, knowledge and commitment.  In addition, she has a position as  a
Predator Pilot waiting for her in a squadron in  need  of  pilots  with  her
level and type of experience.

Her complete response with attachments is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial.  DPB states there is no apparent  error  in  her
Officer Selection Record (OSR) that could result in Special Selection  Board
(SSB) consideration  in  lieu  of  either  the  FY07  or  FY08  USAFR  Major
Promotion Boards.  The applicant may have a valid issue with the  timeliness
of the  application  process  and  the  errors  that  occurred  during  that
process, those issues would not effect [sic} the results of the  FY08  USAFR
Major Promotion Board.   While  the  applicant  is  twice  non-selected  for
promotion to major, the ANG is unable to tender an appointment.

The complete DPB evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 7 December 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of
this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  favorable  action  on  the
applicant's request.  While it  is  not  clear  whether  the  applicant  is
requesting direct promotion to the grade of major or reconsideration  by  a
Special Selection Board,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  either  action  is
warranted in this case.  Officers compete for  promotion  under  the  whole
person concept whereby a multitude of factors are carefully assessed by the
selection board members prior to  scoring  the  record.   In  addition,  an
officer may be qualified, but - in the judgment of selection board  members
vested with discretionary authority to score their records - may not be the
best qualified of those  eligible  for  the  limited  number  of  promotion
vacancies.  Consequently, it is our opinion that a direct promotion  should
be granted only under extraordinary circumstances; i.e., a showing that the
officer's record cannot be constructed in such a manner  so  as  to  permit
competing for promotion on a fair and equitable basis; or, that had  errors
not occurred, the probability of selection for promotion  would  have  been
extremely high.  We are not persuaded by her assertions that these  factors
exist in this case.  Her numerous contentions of administrative delays  and
misinformation are duly noted.  However, notwithstanding  the  factors  she
contends ultimately led to her being in the position she now finds herself,
the fact remains that there were no material errors in her record  reviewed
by the selection board.  Therefore, we find no evidence of an error in this
case and are not persuaded by her assertions that she has been  the  victim
of an injustice.  Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,
we find no compelling basis upon which to grant 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;  the  application  was  denied
without  a  personal  appearance;  and  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-2006-02034
in Executive Session on 18 December 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr.  Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr.  Anthony P. Reardon, Member
                 Ms.  Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02034 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 June 2007, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ CAANGB/A1P, dated 24 July 2007.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1POP, dated 30 July 2007.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 8 August 2007.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 August 2007.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 September 2007.
      Exhibit G   Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 6 December 2007.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 December 2007.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair