RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC 2007-02322
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX           COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col)  (O-5)  with  an
effective date of 9 September 2001.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air National Guard (ANG) chain of command, between 29  August  2001  and
28 August 2005, made a  deliberate  and  cognitive  decision  to  limit  her
advancement by repeatedly denying her the opportunity to be promoted to  the
rank of Lt Col.  Leadership  consistently  provided  vague,  incorrect,  and
conflicting information about  her  non-selection  for  promotion,  position
number, authorized grade of her position, and the history of her  authorized
position.  Their actions denied her fair  and  equitable  consideration  for
promotion to the rank of Lt Col, to include  a  position  vacancy  promotion
and mandatory promotion following her selection  by  the  Fiscal  Year  2004
(FY04) Promotion Board in accordance  with  the  Reserve  Officer  Personnel
Management Act (ROPMA).  She first became eligible for promotion to  Lt  Col
under position vacancy criterion,  having  met  time-in-grade,  professional
military education, and position  vacancy  requirements;  however,  was  not
promoted.  She was selected  for  promotion  by  the  FY04  ROPMA  Promotion
Board; however, her leadership told her she was assigned  to  an  authorized
major position; therefore, she would have to sign  a  waiver  of  promotion.
Her effective date of promotion was 14 months away; therefore, she  did  not
complete or sign the form.  Records document she was  assigned  to  position
number 0002339 from 29 August 2001 through at least 24 January 2005.   Based
on the  copy  of  the  position  description  supporting  position  0002339,
provided to her on 2 February 2004, the authorized grade for  this  position
was Lt Col.  Shortly after she presented evidence to the  ANG/XO  leadership
that her current position was, in fact, authorized as  Lt  Col  vice  major,
she was notified that her four-year active duty Statutory Tour with the  Air
National Guard Readiness Center was not extended in  spite  of  having  been
advised by her immediate supervisor  in  January  2004  that  she  would  be
extended.

During the entire time, she was  repeatedly  denied  an  opportunity  to  be
promoted to the rank of Lt Col; however, during the  same  period  of  time,
ANG/XO used position vacancy  criterion  to  promote  other  majors  in  the
directorate with less time-in-grade than  her,  later  dates  of  assignment
than hers, and  with  minimum  time-in-grade.   Based  on  her  perceptions,
ANG/XO leadership, through  NGB/CF,  proactively  and  successfully  pursued
available Lt Col positions and controlled grades for these other officers.

On 12 April 2007, she discovered that the Current Grade  Effective  Date  of
Rank Effective Date ((CG DOR EFF DATE) on her current active duty  statutory
tour orders was in error by four years.  Her CG DOR EFF DATE is 9  September
1997; however, it was listed as 29 August 2001  on  her  assignment  orders.
Efforts to correct this error were successful;  however,  it  leads  her  to
question whether or not the incorrect CG DOR EFF DATE may have impacted  her
opportunities for promotion.

She would like the Board to  redress  this  situation  and  render  a  final
decision that will allow for her immediate promotion to the rank of Lt  Col,
with an effective date of 9 September 2001, the date she was first  eligible
for promotion and assigned to an authorized Lt Col position.   This  outcome
will allow  her  to  pursue,  with  her  remaining  time-in-service,  career
opportunities that were previously and unjustly unavailable to her.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal  statement,  and
copies of position descriptions,  electronic  communications,  and  numerous
military personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the ANG on an  active  duty  statutory
tour in the grade of major with a date of rank of 9 September 1997.

She was selected for promotion to the grade of Lt Col by the FY04  ANG  Line
and Nonline Lt Col Promotion Selection  Board  with  a  projected  effective
date of 9 September 2004.  However, ANG/OM indicates the applicant  was  not
able to be promoted to the grade of Lt Col due to the controlled  grade  for
her position was that of major.

The following is a resume of  the  applicant’s  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR) ratings commencing with her report closing 5 July 1996:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL RATING

       5 Jul 96                         Meets Standards (MS)
       5 Jul 97                              MS
       5 Jul 98                              MS
       5 Jul 99                               MS
      16 Jun 00                         Education/Training Report
      10 Jul 01                              MS
      28 Aug 01                               MS
      10 Jul 02                              MS
      28 Aug 03                              MS
      28 Aug 04                              MS
      21 Feb 05                              MS
      28 Aug 05                              MS
       4 May 06                              MS
       9 May 07                              MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF recommends denial of the applicant’s  immediate  promotion  to  Lt
Col with an effective date of 9 September 2001.  A1POF states the  applicant
began a four-year active  duty  statutory  tour  with  the  ANG  as  an  Air
Operations Staff Officer.  While assigned to this position, she  anticipated
that having met all requirements to be promoted to  Lt  Col,  she  would  be
promoted.  The applicant then inquired and was advised by  AMC/RE  that  she
was assigned to an authorized major position.  She was also advised  that  a
position vacancy promotion was not an option because there  were  no  vacant
Lt Col  positions  or  controlled  grades  to  support  a  position  vacancy
promotion to Lt Col.  On 3 September 2002, she was reassigned  from  AMC  to
ANG  Directorate  of  Operations  as  a  C-130J  Requirements   Officer   in
Arlington, VA.  The authorized grade for this position was Lt Col;  however,
the controlled grade  was  that  of  major.   Again  she  anticipated  being
promoted based on  conversations  with  the  ANG/XO  leadership  during  the
negotiations of the move.  In July 2003, with  new  ANG/XO  leadership,  she
was notified she had been selected for promotion  by  the  FY04  2004  ROPMA
Promotion Board.  Her projected  date  of  rank  for  the  promotion  was  9
September 2004.   After  inquiring  on  the  promotion,  the  applicant  was
advised that she was assigned to a grade-authorized major position and  that
position vacancy promotion was not an option because there  were  no  vacant
Lt Col position “offsets,” or controlled  grades  to  support  her  position
vacancy.  Regarding her ROPMA promotion, she was instructed to complete  the
AF IMT 3988, Application for Voluntary Delay, Acceptance, or Declination  of
Promotion, which she did not complete  or  sign.   Upon  completion  of  her
tour, she was not extended, and returned to her ANG unit in California.   On
10 May 2006, the  applicant  began  a  second  active  duty  tour  with  the
National Guard Bureau, as a  Plans  Officer.   The  authorized  grade  is  a
captain/major.  Recently, she discovered the “Controlled Grade Date of  Rank
Effective Date” was incorrect.  Efforts to  correct  this  were  successful;
however, the applicant is led to believe that  his  may  have  impacted  her
opportunities for promotion.

A1POF states the position the applicant applied for  was  advertised  for  a
promotable captain or major.  Since that date, she  has  not  been  selected
for positions requiring the grade of Lt  Col.   ANG  officers  selected  for
promotion to Lt Col who are in a full-time Air Guard Reserve/Statutory  Tour
position, and not assigned  to  a  valid  Lt  Col  billet  at  the  time  of
promotion have two options.  The member can accept a voluntary delay of  the
mandatory promotion or revert to a traditional Guard status  to  accept  the
promotion.  According to ANGI 36-2502,  Promotion  of  Airmen,  or  National
Guard Regulation 36-4, Federal Recognition of Promotion in the Air  National
Guard of the United States and as a Reserve  of  the  Air  Force  below  the
Grade  of  General  Officer,   the   functional   director   or   designated
representative must approve a promotion request prior to it being  submitted
to ANG/OM  for  processing.   ANG/OM  has  not  received  any  requests  for
promotion from the applicant’s director as required for ANG/OM  to  initiate
a unit vacancy promotion or ROPMA promotion.

The NGB/A1POF evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that having been failed by the National  Guard  System,
she was surprised to  learn,  first,  that  upon  receiving  the  Air  Force
advisory opinion, the AFBCMR process directed it to the very  same  National
Guard office that played a major role in the  offending  history,  and  then
asked them for input and a recommendation on her specific case.   Throughout
the entire chronology of events, many of the political  decisions  affecting
her case were issued through this same office.   Second,  the  selection  of
the individual chosen and accepted as the subject  matter  expert  (SME)  is
extremely  unfortunate  and  has  served  only  to  multiply  the  injustice
exponentially, as this particular SME is far from unbiased.   This  SME  has
been  extremely  close  to  this  situation  and  has  been  a   significant
participant in all the decisions  and  cultural  politics  surrounding  this
case  for  the  entire  length  of  the  time  referenced  in  the  package.
Additionally, this SME is well known to be both personally  and  emotionally
attached to this case, and should have immediately recused herself from  any
involvement with it.  The fact that this particular  National  Guard  office
and this specific individual have officially commented at all  presents,  at
a  minimum,  a  conflict  of  interest  and  is  completely   inappropriate.
Additionally, it is a gross violation of the  Board  process  and  comprises
all trust and respect for its integrity.

Her leadership made a considerable effort to  have  her  believe  they  were
trying to promote her, but the reality of their  actions  tell  a  different
story.  Despite their claims, they made no inquiries or requests to  support
her promotion, they intentionally diluted her OPRs,  and  they  consistently
gave  inaccurate  information  regarding  the  real  authorization  of   her
position.  Not only were they making absolutely no effort  to  promote  her,
to the contrary, they were actively and intentionally  seeking  to  minimize
her competitiveness through deliberate and questionable means, with  neither
cause nor merit.

While putting together her appeal package for submission to the  Board,  she
discovered her initial position was, in fact, an authorized Lt Col  position
all along.  However, she had been told that her position was  only  a  major
authorization.  The fact that her leadership consistently withheld a Lt  Col
controlled grade to put against her position, all  the  while,  telling  her
they were doing everything possible to get her promoted, is a huge  part  of
the injustice.  Her leadership found  no  difficulty  finding  the  required
controlled grades to promote many male officers who arrived later  and  were
far junior to her.  Her leadership even had Lt Col controlled grades  placed
against the positions of junior male officers in  her  own  division  before
they were minimally eligible for unit vacancy  promotion  to  Lt  Col.   Her
leadership also transferred available Lt  Col  controlled  grades  from  her
division to other divisions to promote other junior male officers,  all  the
while telling her that, unfortunately, these could not help her because  her
position was only authorized as a major.  She  has  provided  evidence  that
her position was an authorized Lt Col position.  Her  leadership  eventually
admitted they knew this all along.

The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
available evidence, we are not persuaded that the  applicant  has  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  We note  the  applicant’s  assertion  that
her  leadership  actively  and  intentionally   sought   to   minimize   her
competitiveness through deliberate and questionable  means  to  prevent  her
promotion to the grade of Lt Col; however, she has not provided evidence  to
support her contentions.  The applicant was assigned to a  position  at  AMC
that while it was authorized as a Lt Col position, it was  only  funded  for
occupancy by the grade of major.  According  to  ANG/OM,  the  position  she
occupied was transferred along with the applicant’s assignment when she  was
transferred to ANG Directorate of Operations.  As for her current  position,
we note the applicant willingly accepted her current  active  duty  position
which has an authorized grade of major.  We note the  applicant’s  assertion
that the SME is biased and serves only to  multiply  the  injustice  against
her but; again, she  provides  no  corroborated  evidence  to  support  this
contention.  The applicant’s also asserts that controlled grades were  found
for far junior male officers that arrived to her  division  after  she  did;
however,  the  applicant  has  not  provided  evidence  such  as  an   Equal
Opportunity or Inspector General assessment to  substantiate  her  concerns.
The  evidence  of  record  indicates  her  leadership  followed  established
procedures and policies.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we concur with  the comments provided by  the  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis  for  our  decision  in
this case.  In view of the above, we have no basis  on  which  to  favorably
consider the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 29 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
            Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC  2007-02322
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 03, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 25 Apr 03.




                                  MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                                   Panel Chair