RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02439
                                             INDEX CODE:  131.09
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of colonel as if he had  been  promoted  by  the
Calendar Year 2007A (CY04A) (P0604A) Colonel Central Selection Board  (CSB).


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an Armed Forces Information Service  Instruction  error,  the  P0604A
Colonel Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) did not  contain  a  “Definitely
Promote” (DP) or stratification statements.

Since 1999, he has been #1, or in  the  top  10%,  against  a  46% selection
rate.  Even without those PRF statements, board members should have seen  he
deserved to be promoted  to  colonel  based  on  his  PRFs  since  1999.   A
Department  of  Defense  (DoD)  Senior  Executive  Staff   (SES)   Publisher
acknowledged this problem in a letter to the CY05A Colonel CSB.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a personal statement,  a
July 2004 e-mail pertaining to his Officer Preselection Brief for the  CY04A
Colonel CSB, PRFs for the P0602B, P0603B, and P0604A  Colonel  CSBs,  an  AF
IMT 3538, Retention Recommendation, a 10 June 2005 letter  from  a  DoD  SES
recommending his immediate promotion, and an August-September  e-mail  trail
with SAF/MRBR concerning this application.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant has four non-selections to the grade of colonel by the  CY04A,
CY05A, CY06A, and CY07A Colonel CSBs.

________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial since the application is  without  merit  and
no error or injustice occurred.  The applicant filed two  appeals  with  the
Evaluation  Reports  Appeals  Board  (ERAB)  and  both  were  returned   for
clarification  and  the  supporting  documentation  required  by  Air  Force
Instructions (AFI) 36-2406 and AFI 36-2401.  The applicant did  not  respond
to the opportunity to provide the required documentation  and  clarification
as pertains to his ERAB appeals and this application.

The time to question a PRF is when the PRF is presented to the officer,  and
the officer has a 30-day window in which to address the content of  the  PRF
with the senior rater.   Rater  stratifications  are  personal  opinions  of
where the ratee ranks within  the  rater’s  small  unit  –  not  necessarily
across the entire Air Force.  The total record of  performance  is  reviewed
by a microcosm of officers from across the Air Force who  rank  the  officer
against others from across the entire Air Force, and while  this  rater  may
be impressed with his performance, it may  not  stack-up  when  compared  to
other lieutenant colonels in the Air Force.  The PRF content alone does  not
make a record promotable; rather, it is an overview of the officer’s  career
– the entire record of performance to include decorations  and  the  Officer
Selection Brief.

The AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO concurs with the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation  and  recommends  denial
of the applicant’s request for direct  promotion  and/or  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration.

The results of the CSBs the applicant met were based on  a  complete  review
of his entire record,  assessing  the  whole  person  factors  such  as  job
performance,  professional  qualities,  depth  and  breadth  of  experience,
leadership, and  education.   Although  an  officer  may  be  qualified  for
promotion, he may not be the  best  qualified  of  other  eligible  officers
competing for the limited number of promotion vacancies in the  judgment  of
a  selection  board  vested  with  discretionary  authority  to  make   such
decisions.  Furthermore, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to  all
other officers who have  extremely  competitive  records  but  did  not  get
promoted.  Additionally, both Congress and DoD have made clear their  intent
that errors ultimately affecting promotion should be  resolved  through  the
use of SSBs.  When many good officers are competing for a limited number  of
promotions,  it  is  extremely  competitive.   Without  access  to  all  the
competing records and a  review  of  their  content,  they  believe  sending
approved cases to SSBs for remedy is the fairest
and  best  practice.   However,  in  this  case,  direct  promotion  or  SSB
consideration would be inappropriate.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisories do not specifically address the  errors  in  the  P0604A  CSB
process.  The Air University commander said he was  next  in  line  for  his
Below the Promotion Zone “DP”, OSD/PA sent out the wrong  guidance  for  PRF
preparation, the USAF guidance was not  supported,  and  he  never  met  the
senior rater who wrote the PRF.  He immediately advised AFPC of the  errors,
and a P0604A PRF was re-submitted  but  inadvertently  used  for  his  CY06A
Colonel CSB.  A re-review of his 1999-2007 PRFs  will  reveal  a  lieutenant
colonel “second to none.”

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  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-2007-02439
in Executive Session on 1 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                       Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Mar 07 Officer Selection Record.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 8 Feb 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 28 Feb 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 08.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Mar 08, w/atchs.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair