RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01357
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Air Force update the policy governing “Deployment  History”
credit for Airmen on Permanent Change of Station  (PCS)  orders  to
Southwest  Asia  (SWA)  to  be  equivalent  to  airmen  serving  on
Contingency/Exercise/Deployment (CED) orders to SWA.

2.  His personnel records  be  changed  to  reflect  credit  for  a
deployment rather than  being  cited  for  his  PCS  assignment  to
Al Udeid Air Base  from  Jun  06  –  Jun  07,  and  his  record  be
considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year
2007B (CY07B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force  guidelines  for  recording  an  airman’s  deployment
history in the personnel records are unintentionally biased against
airmen who PCS to  SWA.   Despite  his  yearlong  service  in  SWA,
current Air Force rules do not permit his records  to  be  credited
with a “deployment.”  This rule resulted in a blank  entry  in  the
deployment history section on his officer  selection  brief  (OSB).
The Air University recognizes the “Law of  Primacy”  in  education,
which  postulates  that  information  learned  first,   makes   the
strongest impression.  Therefore, this inaccurate  OSB  creates  an
erroneous first impression of him for the P0507B selection board.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a copy of  his  OSB
from the P0507B CSB; extract of the instructions for the CY07B CSB,
and other supporting documents.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the grade of  major  with  an
effective date and date of rank of 1 Jan 04.  He was considered and
nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by  the  CY07B  and
the CY08B lieutenant Colonel CSBs.

The applicant officer performance report (OPR) profile for the last
five reporting periods follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

      30 Mar 04  Meet Standards (MS)
      30 Mar 05  MS
      10 Oct 05  MS
      21 May 06  MS
#     21 May 07  MS

# Top report at the time he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the CY07B Lieutenant Colonel CSB.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAPPO recommends denial.   While  the  applicant  believes
that AF policy is unintentionally biased against airmen that  PCSed
to SWA versus those that are deployed to SWA, his OSB that met  the
P0507B selection board correctly reflects  his  SWA  time.   He  is
correct that he was not credited with a deployment to SWA as he was
correctly credited with a PCS to SWA not  a  deployment.   The  PCS
information on his OSB  included  duty  title,  location  AFSC  and
dates.  The promotion board saw that he was assigned to SWA as  the
“Deputy Commander…,” a duty for which he also received an OPR  that
the board also reviewed.   Airmen  that  “deploy”  to  SWA  do  not
receive a duty title update nor any other  acknowledgement  on  the
OSB that they performed service in SWA.  Therefore, they do receive
“credit” for the deployment in the “Deployment History” section  of
the OSB; the inference that he was not selected for  promotion  due
to the fact that he was not credited with a “deployment”  is  tough
to understand and he offers no evidence to show  that  his  records
were “unintentionally biased.”  If his PCS to SWA was  not  visible
on the OSB, he would have a point; however, the  PCS  was  arguably
more visible on the OSB than a deployment  date  would  have  been.
Additionally, to suggest that the “first impression” the board  had
was “erroneous” because  he  was  credited  with  a  PCS  versus  a
deployment is speculative at best.

The AFPC/DPAPPO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial.  Their evaluation requires them to
rely on the opinions of other Air Force experts.  As such, based on
AFPC/DPAPPO’s  recommendation,  they  recommend   the   applicant’s
request be denied.

The HQ AFPC/DPSOO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reiterates  his  original  request  and  submits  a
personal statement to amplify the information.  He notes that he is
asking for three things:

      a.  Adjust Air Force policy to give airmen who served in  SWA
equal deployment credit whether they travel on CED and PCS orders.

      b.  Adjust his records in accordance with this new policy.

      c.  Submit his records to an SSB.

In addition, he notes that an article  from  the  Air  Force  Times
indicates that Air Force policy  has  changed  to  mask  deployment
histories in the OSB.  In addition, he cites a similar case file as
evidence and believes  the  BCMR  set  a  precedent  for  reviewing
records that did not accurately reflect deployment history.

The applicant’s complete response 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 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 and the documentation presented in support of his appeal
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided  by  the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR).   Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence he is being treated differently than others
similarly situated, we agree with the recommendation  of  the  OPRs
and adopt their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  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.

4.  We note  that  AFPC/DPSOO  will  administratively  correct  the
applicant’s records  to  reflect  his  short  tour  in  Qatar  from
20 June 2006 to 20 June 2007.  Therefore, no further action by this
Board appears necessary.

___________________________________________________________________


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-2008-01357 in Executive Session  on  16  July  2009,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
      Mr. Robert S. Jack II, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPPO, dated 22 Apr 09.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOO, dated 8 May 09, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 09.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jun 09, w/atchs.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Chair



AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002


Major XXXXXXX
10189 Wavell Road
XXXXXXX VA 22032

Dear Major Rudy

      Reference your application submitted under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-
01357.

      After careful consideration of your application and military
records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did
not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant
evidence for consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such
additional evidence, a further review of your application is not
possible.

      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR





                                                          O. B.
TAYLOR, JR.
                                                          Chief
Examiner
                                                          Air Force
Board for Correction
                                                          of
Military Records

Attachment
Record of Board Proceedings


                   AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
                        OF MILITARY RECORDS

               CASE TRANSMITTAL / COORDINATION RECORD


IN THE MATTER OF:                                  DOCKET NO:

XXXXXXX     BC-2008-01357

TMCD:  13 FEB 2009

ROUTE IN TURN    INITIALS  DATE


1.  CHIEF EXAMINER     ________  ________
    (Coord/Signature)


2.  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ________  ________
    (Coord)


3.  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz  ________  ________
    CHAIR
    (Signature on Proceedings)


4.  EXAMINER


5.  AFBCMR (Processing)




                                 STANLEY L. GREGORY
                                 Examiner
                                 Air Force Board for Correction
                                 of Military Records