RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01656
		INDEX CODE:  131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  27 NOVEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Retention Recommendation Form (RRF), AF IMT 3538, be corrected and he be granted supplemental retention consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant provides a summary of items he feels were not included and/or incorrect on his RRF.  In addition, he provides supporting statements from individuals (not within his rating chain).

In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy of his RRF, two affidavits, copies of award certificates, a copy of a citation, and copies of two letters of appreciation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates that the applicant is a second lieutenant with a date of rank of 8 Jul 06.  He is assigned duties as a Simulation Engineer.  His total active federal military service date (TAFSMD) is 1 Sep 04.  His date of separation is 5 Sep 07.

The applicant’s record was considered and he was not selected for retention by the CY 07 Force Shaping Board (FSB) which convened on 12 Mar 07.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRF recommends denial.  DPPRF states records for officers considered by the Force Shaping Board include an RRF written by the first Colonel or GS-15 in the member’s chain of command and endorsed by the Senior Rater.  The RRF contains nine lines of narrative comments.  The space on the form is limited and it is not usually possible to describe every achievement in an officer’s career.  The first evaluator bears the responsibility of selecting what accomplishments to include in the RRF.

DPPRF notes the applicant was provided a copy of his RRF approximately 56 days prior to the Force Shaping Board convening date.  Eligible officers were advised per MPFM 06-82, 2007 Officer Force Shaping Board, 6 Nov 06, Atch 6, to carefully review the RRF and address any concerns or discrepancies through their Military Personnel Flight, chain of command, and Senior Rater.  Senior raters were provided the opportunity to revise the RRF through the “stop file” process prior to the board convening date.

DPPRF explains in order to appeal an RRF, applicants must offer clear evidence that the original evaluation was “an unjust or inaccurate assessment of [the member’s] potential for continued service.”  To change narrative comments on the RRF, an applicant must have the support of the evaluators who signed the form.  Although the applicant has provided affidavits and letters of recognition detailing his accomplishments, he has provided no evidence to show that his RRF is an unjust or inaccurate assessment and does not have concurrence by his first evaluator and/or Senior Rater.  

DPPRF concludes officers are provided the opportunity to write a letter to the board regarding information they believe warrants consideration.  The applicant submitted such a letter with attachments to the board. 

The complete DPPRF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 Jun 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe that he was not properly considered for retention during the time in question or that his RRF reviewed by the Force Shaping Board was in error.  In addition, the supporting documentation provided by the applicant was from individuals not in his rating chain.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPRF and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision to deny the applicant's request.  

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 this application in Executive Session on 9 Aug 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01656:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 May 07 w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  HQ AFPC/DPPRF, dated 1 Jun 06 [sic].
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 07.