AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01296 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  records  meet  a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  to  reconsider 
him  for  promotion  by  the  CY11B  Colonel  (Col)  Central  Selection 
Board  in  accordance  with  (IAW)  AFI  36-2501,  Officer  Promotions 
and Selective Continuation. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. The CY11B Col CSB failed to promote officers with the “Joint 
Specialty” at a rate “not less than the rate for officers of the 
same armed force in the same grade and competitive category who 
are  serving  on,  or  have  served  on,  the  headquarters  staff  of 
their  armed  force,”  as  required  by  the  Department  of  Defense 
(DoD)  Reorganization  Act  of  1986  (Public  Law  99-433,  para 
662.a.2).  
 
2. He is (and was at the time of the board), a fully-qualified 
Joint  Specialty  Officer  (JSO).    He  qualified  under  each  of  the 
three  categories  of  Joint  officers  laid-out  in  Public  Law  99-
433.  
 
3. The selection rate for JSOs was only 50.97 percent as opposed 
to  the  headquarters  Air  Force  (HAF)  promotion  rate  of 
62.75 percent.    If  the  Air  Force  was  to  meet  the  required 
promotion rate for JSOs, IAW Public Law 99-433, para 662.a.2, an 
additional 19 JSOs would need to be promoted from the CY11B Col 
CSB. 
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of the 
CY11B Col promotion statistics, extract from Public Law 99-433, 
paragraph 662, and a Single Unit Retrieval Format (SURF).   
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  currently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade 
of lieutenant colonel.  
 
 
 

1 

The instructions provided to promotion board members state that 
law  and  DoD  policy  require  that  the  qualifications  of  officers 
assigned to joint duty be such that: 
 
 
(1)  Officers  who  are  serving  on,  or  have  served  on,  the 
Joint Staff are expected, as a group, to be promoted at a rate 
not less than the rate for Line of the Air Force (LAF) officers 
in  the  same  grade  who  are  serving  on,  or  have  served  on,  the 
service HAF staff; 
 
(2)  Officers  who  are  serving  in,  or  have  served  in,  joint 
 
duty assignments, are expected, as a group, to be promoted at a 
rate not less than LAF average rate for the same grade; 
 
 
(3) Officers who hold the grade of major or above who have 
been  designated  as  a  JQO  are  expected,  as  a  group,  to  be 
promoted  at  a  rate  not  less  than  the  LAF  average  rate  for  the 
same grade; and 
 
(4) Officers who are serving on, or have served within, the 
 
Office  of  the  Secretary  of  Defense  (SECDEF)  are  expected,  as  a 
group, to be promoted at a rate not less than the rate for LAF 
officers  in  the  same  grade  who  are  serving  on,  or  have  served 
on, the service headquarters staff. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPAPPO  recommends  the  applicant’s  request  be  forwarded  to 
DPSOO for potential non-select counseling.  According to the DoD 
Instruction  (DODI)  1300.9,  enclosure  10,  section  E10.1.3, 
effective  14  Oct  08,  “officers  in  the  grade  of  major  or  above 
who have been designated as a Joint Qualified Officer (JQO) are 
expected as a group to be promoted to the next higher grade at a 
rate not less than the rate for officers of the same armed force 
in  the  same  grade  and  competitive  category.”    Using  the 
applicant’s  statistics,  the  JQO  promotion  selection  rate  is 
5.25 percent 
is 
45.72 percent).  Even if the Air Force had not met the promotion 
objectives,  this  in  and  of  itself,  is  not  a  reason  to  grant  a 
SSB.   
 
The complete DPAPPO evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
AFPC/DPSOO  recommends  denial.    DPSOO  states  that  since  the  JQO 
rate  was  above  the  LAF  average,  the  applicant’s  request  is 
without merit. 
 
Both  law  and  DoD  policy  require  that  the  qualifications  of  the 
officers  assigned  are  expected  as  a  group,  not  required,  to  be 
promoted at a higher rate.   
 
 
 
 

average 

average 

2 

above 

board 

(board 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
By  letter  dated  30  Jul  12,  the  applicant  states  there  are  two 
critical  areas  in  which  the  two  advisory  opinions  did  not 
properly evaluate his case.  
 
First,  both  opinions  authored  by  DPAPPO  and  DPSOO,  cited  DODI 
1300.19  as  justification  for  the  low  promotion  rate  of  JQO  on 
the  CY11B  Col  CSB.    However,  the  criteria  which  established 
promotion  rates  for  JQOs  was  laid-out  in  Public  Law  99-443.  
Public Law takes precedence over DoDIs. 
 
Second,  the  point  made  by  both  offices  is  that  the  failure  of 
the board to comply with legislative guidance is not grounds for 
an  SSB  is  inaccurate.    AFI  36-2501  establishes  the  SSB  as  the 
single  source  of  recourse  for  officers  when  “the  action  of  the 
board that considered the officer was contrary to law.”   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  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.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the  case  to  include  his  response  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation.  
The  applicant  contends  the  OPRs  did  not  properly  evaluate  his 
case; however, as pointed-out by AFPC/DPAPPO, the JQO promotion 
rate was 5.25 percent above board average.  Therefore, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOO and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
failed  to  sustain  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or 
injustice.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence 
to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the 
relief sought in this application.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3 

 
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-2012-01296  in  Executive  Session  on  4  Oct  2012,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
Panel Chair 
 
Member 
 
Member 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPPO, dated 11 May 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 19 June 2012, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jul 12, w/atch. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  
  

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

4