RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01707
								INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 November 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) considered by the CY06A (15 May 2006) (P0606A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be replaced with a corrected PRF provided with this application, and that she meet a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to colonel.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The original PRF did not include the fact that she was promoted two-years Below-the-Promotion-Zone (BPZ) to major, one of her biggest successes in her 18-year career.

Her BPZ promotion was not available to the P0606A CSB in that it was not in any of the records that met the board, to include the Officer Selection Brief (OSB), and AFPC has stated the PRF is the proper location for this information.  They also advised her that the PRF omission of her BPZ promotion to major most likely sent an inadvertent negative signal to any board member that did the math and realized an early promotion must have taken place.

Being promoted early to major, combined with the fact she was both “late rated” (did not go to pilot training as a second lieutenant) and “banked” (sent to a staff tour for three years following graduation from UPT) resulted in her being “shut out” of the normal aviator job track.  After being promoted to major, she was not permitted to gain the usual aviator experience as a company grade officer (CGO) because these positions were not appropriate for field grade officers (FGO), and this was further exasperated by the negative view of her leadership concerning her pregnancy at the time.

Being “late rated”, “banked” for three years, “promoted early”, and sent to Air Command and Staff College in-residence for a year also meant that there was no legal way for her to gain the expected staff tour as an FGO.  Her lack of typical career progression and not filling a “staff tour” was not due to poor performance, but due to exceptional performance.  She was competitively selected to attend pilot training after joining the Air Force, and was competitively selected for promotion two-years BPZ.  It seems that this early promotion explains volumes and should have been included in her PRF.

The BPZ promotion to major explains “gaps” in normal professional development.  AFPC and other senior personnel that reviewed her records advised her that her non-traditional career path and lack of staff duty as an FGO may have been the reason for her non-selection to colonel, a fact that is explained by her early promotion.  The BPZ also stratified her as the top 1% of her year group, a significant strat {sic} missing from her records.

In support of her appeal, she has provided copies of a personal statement, dated 23 May 2007, a corrected PRF changing comments in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, her “As Met” records, an AF IMT 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Report, dated 12 December 2006, a memorandum from the senior rater, dated 21 November 2006, a memorandum from the MLR President, dated 6 December 2006, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 23 March 2007, and a memorandum from SAF/IG, dated 17 May 2007.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was a non-select by the CY06A (15 May 2006) (P0606A) In-the-Promotion-Zone Colonel CSB; however, she was selected by the CY07A (9 April 2007) (P0607A) Above-the-Promotion-Zone Colonel CSB.  She filed an appeal with the ERAB to substitute a corrected PRF which was disapproved on 23 March 2007.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  Although the applicant contends that the information pertaining to her 2-years BPZ to major was not available to the promotion board and, as such, the explanation for “gaps” in her normal professional development and her stratification as being in the top 1% of her year group was missing, this does not negate the fact that the information was available to the senior rater (SR) in preparation of the PRF.  AFI 36-2406, paragraph 8.3.2.5.2 states “…In all cases, a senior rater has the final authority to determine the content of the PRFs he or she prepares…”  Also, paragraph 8.1.4.1 states “The Senior Rater is solely responsible for evaluating each officer’s Record of Performance and Duty Qualification History brief.”  In the applicant’s case, the SR did not deem it necessary to comment on the previous BPZ selection to major.  Additionally, she was given a copy of the PRF approximately 30 days prior to the CSB and is charged with reviewing the PRF for accuracy.  The bottom of the PRF states to the officer “Prior to your board convening date, you must contact your senior rater to discuss if your PRF is not accurate, omits pertinent information or has an error.”  Applicant has given no indication that this omission was brought to the attention of the SR prior to the board convening date.

IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 8.5, “A PRF is considered a working copy until the start of the CSB.”  Paragraph 8.5 also establishes procedures to correct any information in the content of the PRF prior to the CSB.  There is no indication that such a correction was requested.  Furthermore, the applicant could also have addressed the possible omission directly to the CSB, but failed to do so.

A PRF is not erroneous or unfair because a member believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion.  The simple willingness of a SR to rewrite a PRF to include previously known information should not be the basis for correction.  Competition for promotion is keen and, unfortunately, all eligibles cannot be selected because of Congressional constraints.  The fact is that  for each promotion board, there are many more highly qualified officers competing for promotion than there are promotions available.  Consequently, non-selection does not necessarily indicate the applicant was not qualified or not deserving of promotion.  Rather, in the board’s judgment, her peers demonstrated greater capability to perform duties and assume the responsibilities of the next higher grade.

While the PRF may not have included information which the applicant seems to feel was vital, the selection board had her entire Officer Selection Record that clearly outlined her accomplishments since the day she came on active duty.  The OSB listed her service dates which would show that she was commissioned two years after the main body of eligibles, indicating she had an early promotion; thus, the information was available to the CSB.  In addition, she was not the only officer affected by the “banking” of pilot trainees.  Anyone selected for pilot training at the same time would have been banked and met similar career challenges.  

They recommend denial as the information was known to the applicant as well as the SR prior to the CSB, and was available to the CSB due to the visibility of her service dates.  Based on this, they find no basis to grant SSB consideration.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant took issue with the AFPC advisory, stating that although her official SURF contains her 2-year-BPZ promotion to major information, she was unaware that it would be “masked” from her records during the CSB.

The applicant contends that the omission of her BPZ to major in her PRF was an oversight by her SR.  When she became aware that her BPZ information was masked during the CSB, she contacted her SR who wrote a new PRF to include this information, and wrote a memo to AFPC requesting that her records meet an SSB.  If his actions to omit the BPZ were intentional, he would not have done this, and had she been aware that the BPZ promotion information would be masked from her records during the CSB, she would have contacted her SR and requested this information be included in her PRF.

The applicant contends that she did not realize a correction was necessary and did not address this to the CSB as it was her understanding that her SURF was a key document that met a CSB, that the SURF was the next primary document after the PRF that the CSB reviewed, and that if there was information in the SURF that would not be available to the CSB, it would be announced.  Since her SURF correctly depicted her BPZ information, she did not feel that there was a correction that needed to be addressed to the CSB.

The applicant states her SR re-wrote the PRF because he believed this information should have been available to the CSB.  She contends that she was one of only 3 candidates with a promotion recommendation of “P” that were selected for promotion to the grade of colonel above-the-zone during the CY07A (P0607A) CSB, and that her records did not significantly change from her P0606A non-selection.  In her opinion, the most significant difference in her records is that her PRF considered by her above-the-zone CSB included the BPZ information.

The applicant contends that to state that other banked pilots met the same career challenges is simply not true.  She contends she was the only “late rated” officer banked from her UPT class, and is confident she is the only rated officer that was late rated, banked, and then promoted two years early.  She contends she lost out on 8 years, and that the majority of banked pilots would have had more than 5 years to serve in the cockpit as a CGO versus her less than one year opportunity.  The moment she was promoted to major (less than a year from being assigned her first aircraft), she was pulled from holding a key learning position as the duties were CGO duties, and with only one year as an operational pilot, she did not have the necessary experience to fill FGO positions.  Additionally, her 2-year-BPZ promotion guaranteed that she would not have the opportunity to hold “staff” positions as an FGO prior to her primary zone promotion to colonel.

She closes by contending that competition for promotion should include providing the CSB with all relevant information, that the individual’s entire performance should be considered, and that it is unclear to her why BPZ information is masked from the CSB.  It is a fact that she was not aware that her BPZ information would be masked to the CSB and, had she been aware this would be the case, she would have ensured that her PRF would have been re-written to include this data.

Applicant’s complete response 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant changing the PRF prepared for the CY06A, P0606A, Colonel CSB.  The applicant’s senior rater, SAF/IG, and the MLR President for the CY06A, P0606A, Colonel CSB, have acknowledged that an error was made in the PRF that was prepared for, and considered by, the CSB.  They have recommended the PRF be replaced with the PRF contained in this application and that the applicant receive SSB consideration with the corrected PRF.  Given the strong command support, the Board is not convinced that her 2-year early promotion to major and unusual duty history were explicitly stated anywhere in her records considered by the P0606A CSB.  While the Board cannot determine what impact this corrected PRF would have had on the outcome of the CSB, the Board is persuaded she may have been deprived of full and fair consideration.  In view of the above, and in order to resolve any injustice and allow the SSB to perform a complete and accurate assessment, we recommend that her records be corrected to the extent indicated below.  

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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2006A (CY06A) Central Colonel Selection Board be declared void and removed from her records, and the attached PRF reflecting the third line in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, “Superb record!  2 yrs BPZ to Maj, 2x CGOY, SOS “Outstanding Contributor,” & 2x Jaycee’s 10 OYA nominee” be accepted for file in its place.  

It is further recommended that her record, to include the attached PRF, be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY06A Central Colonel Selection Board.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-01707 in Executive Session on 17 October 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Aug 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 07.