RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02755
            INDEX CODES:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be immediately promoted to the Reserve grade  of  colonel,  with  a
retroactive date of 2006;  or,  in  the  alternative,  his  record  be
considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB)  for  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by the Fiscal  Year  2006  (FY06)  Line  and  Nonline
Colonel Selection Board, excluding both his  Promotion  Recommendation
Form (PRF) and those of all candidates, and he be allowed to submit  a
personal letter to the board.

By amendment, in the alternative, his FY06 PRF be amended  to  include
the matters  subsequently  added  during  the  correction  of  records
process, he be assigned a new ranking, and he  be  afforded  candidacy
before a new SSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was precluded from submitting a personal letter  to  the  FY06  SSB
concerning the matters he believed were important to his case.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  an   expanded
statement, documentation pertaining to a previous  correction  of  his
records and an SSB, and a copy of his FY06 PRF.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available  military  personnel  records  indicate  he  was
appointed as a first lieutenant,  Reserve  of  the  Air  Force,  Judge
Advocate General Department Reserve (JAGDR), on 19  Aug  85,  and  was
voluntarily ordered to extended active duty  on  3  Oct  85.   He  was
honorably  discharged  from  all  appointments  on  1  Oct  93   under
the provisions of AFR 36-12  (Voluntary  Resignation  –  Miscellaneous
Reasons).  He was credited with 7 years, 11 months,  and  28  days  of
active total active service.

On 2 Oct 93, he was appointed as a captain, Iowa  Air  National  Guard
(ANG).  By Special Order AFA-02, dated 1 Oct 96, he was assigned to an
Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) tour.

On 13 Dec 97, the applicant  separated  from  the  Iowa  ANG  and  was
transferred to the Air Force Reserve (ARPC/JA).

By Reserve Order EK-2505, dated 3 Feb 06, the applicant  was  relieved
from his current assignment, assigned to the Retired Reserve, and  his
name was placed on the Reserve Retired List, effective 9  Jul  06,  in
the grade of lieutenant colonel.

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  1996
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      31 Jul 96  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
      31 Jul 97  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
      13 Dec 98  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
      13 Dec 00  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
      13 Jun 03  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
      14 Mar 04  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
  #   14 Mar 05  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)
      14 Mar 06  Meets Standards (Non-EAD)

# Top Report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by the FY06 Line and Nonline Colonel
Selection Board.

On 17 Jan 07, the Board considered the applicant’s  request  that  his
record be corrected to  reflect  that  a  Meritorious  Service  Medal,
Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM (4OLC)) was a matter of record  when  his
record was considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by an  SSB
for the FY06 Line and Nonline  Colonel  Selection  Board.   The  Board
recommended his request be approved and that his  record,  to  include
the MSM (4OLC), be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by
SSB for the FY06 Line and Nonline Colonel Selection Board,  which  was
accepted by the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency on 8 Mar 07.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the  Air
Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial indicating that after the  FY06  board  had
adjourned, it was discovered the applicant had written a letter to the
board, but it  was  not  placed  in  his  selection  folder.   He  was
immediately granted an SSB, based  on  his  missing  letter.   In  his
notification of the SSB, he was told he could write a  new  letter  to
the SSB and was provided  guidelines  on  how  to  write  the  letter.
Writing a letter to an SSB is addressed in the governing  instruction.
A letter to an SSB is  only  refused  when  it  addresses  events  and
information that occurred after the original board, or if  the  letter
is written to contradict the  governing  instruction.   Prior  to  the
convening of the board, the applicant's record and OSB were  corrected
to clarify his duty assignment history, his  academic  education,  and
the receipt of the MSM 40LC.

According to ARPC/DPB, the foundation of the applicant's case  appears
to be that he feels he needs to explain to the SSB  that  he  was  the
candidate from among all the records, that his PRF was inaccurate  but
his record had been corrected, and that his  Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB) should reflect the award of an MSM (40LC).  The final letter  he
submitted addressed the span of his position as a military judge.   He
addressed his academic education, the reasons behind  his  second  Air
Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM),  his  AGR  assignment,  and  Officer
Performance Report (OPR) that covered two years rather than one year.

ARPC/DPB states that that at no time did the applicant  challenge  the
veracity  of  the  PRF  through  official  channels.   Prior  to   his
retirement, he could have appealed  the  PRF  through  the  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), or now  that  he  is  retired,  he  could
appeal the PRF directly  to  the  Board.   Further,  contrary  to  the
applicant’s belief, the PRF  is  not  the  single-most  important  and
controlling document in a candidate’s file; it is only  one  piece  of
the “whole person” concept, and is simply a summary of  the  officer’s
career with a promotion recommendation from the senior  rater  to  the
promotion board.

In ARPC/DPD’s view, there has been no unfair treatment of the officer.
  He  received  the  same  advice,  guidance,  and  instruction  about
preparing a letter to a promotion board as every other officer.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPD evaluation, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicates  the  advisory  opinion  misstates  his  position,
ignores regulatory authority, and misapprehends the reality of the Air
Force promotion system.  The essence of his  appeal  is  that  he  was
wrongly denied the opportunity to send a written communication to  the
SSB so that he could bring attention to any matter that he  considered
important to his case in accordance with  the  governing  instruction.
In this instance, several corrections were made to his  records  after
his original selection board.  However,  those  corrections  were  not
accurately reflected in  his  PRF.   Hence,  he  deemed  it  of  vital
importance to comment on the differences between the corrected  record
and his PRF in a letter to the SSB.  However,  a  civilian  technician
again prevented him from doing so.  Despite the  editorial  nature  of
the advisory opinion and the obvious personal and biased  interest  of
the  civilian  technician,  he  was  and  is  entitled  to  point  out
inconsistencies and errors  between  the  corrected  records  and  the
outdated PRF.  Therefore, he requests that the Board grant the  relief
sought in his appeal or, in the alternative, the Board amend  the  PRF
to include the matters subsequently added  during  the  correction  of
records process, he be assigned a new ranking, and that he be afforded
candidacy before a new SSB.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  No evidence has been presented which
shows to our satisfaction the applicant was denied an  opportunity  to
write a letter to the SSB that met the  provisions  of  the  governing
instruction.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence
he was not afforded full and fair consideration by a duly  constituted
SSB, or that he was treated differently than other similarly  situated
individuals, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an  error
or  an  injustice.   Accordingly,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend  granting   the   relief   sought   in   this   application.
Notwithstanding this decision, if the applicant were to provide a copy
of a reaccomplished PRF that has the support of the senior  rater  and
board president, we would be inclined to reconsider his request for an
SSB, with inclusion of that PRF.

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-
2007-02755 in Executive Session on 26 Mar 08, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 24 Sep 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Oct 07, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                   Panel Chair