RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01892
		INDEX CODE: 131.00
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

	MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Dec 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Corrections be made to his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Fiscal Year 2004 (FY04) Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Promotion Selection Board (U0504B) 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The PRF that met the selection board contained inaccuracies and should have reflected the correct data.

In support of his request applicant provided documentation associated with his Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) submission.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in the grade of lieutenant colonel having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 30 Sep 04.  The remaining relevant facts are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial.  DPB states while the applicant states he did apply for ERAB relief, HQ ARPC returned his package without action.  The package was incomplete; it did not contain the new PRF signed by the senior rater as required by AFI 36-2401.  His AFBCMR package does not contain a signed, revised copy of the proposed PRF.  It also lacks evidence of support for a change from the senior rater who wrote the original report.  The package does contain letters of support from what appears to be his rating chain as it exists today.  If such is the case, these letters have no bearing on supporting a change four years ago.

HQ ARPC checks final PV eligibility factors by verifying the position number on the PRF matches the position the officer occupies, that it is a higher graded position, and the Duty Title on the PRF matches the position the officer occupies.  Since the board was held four years ago, no record of this verification exists and it is the assumption that the information was accurate at the PRF submission date.

The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he made several attempts, to include a personal visit by his current Operations Group Commander, to get his former rater to revise the PRF but he refused to admit that an error was made on the original PRF.  Simply because the rater does not consider the PRF erroneous does not mean the errors not were made.  His data verification brief shows him as a Squadron Navigator while the Military Personnel Data System showed him in the 96th Airlift Squadron Navigation Section Scheduler Position.  Both positions were not Position Vacancy eligible due to lack of higher grade authorizations.  If the fail-safes that the evaluator lists worked as stated, then his record should never have met the board due to the fact that he was in an 0-4 graded position.  His corrected data verification brief shows he was in the 934th Operations Group Standardization and Evaluation position at the time of the promotion and his PRF should reflect the information commensurate with the duty position.  

In addition, applicant states his senior rater did not provide a copy of the PRF to him in the timeline set out in AFI36-2405.  Errors on the PRF might have been caught and addressed at that time.  He was able to get his duty history changed to reflect his position in the Operations Group as of 1 April 2003.  Since the PRF was wrong, the PRF should be changed to reflect the correct data.

His 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant contends his PRF prepared for the U0504B promotion board was erroneous because it incorrectly reflected the duty position to which he was assigned.  A statement provided by the applicant's supervisor at the time indicates he was assigned to the new position on 1 Apr 03, but due to exigencies beyond his control, his military position description could not be updated in a timely manner.  The position description was subsequently updated and personnel data system currently reflects the correct information.  Notwithstanding his former commander's decision not to support the applicant's request for an corrected PRF, it is our opinion that credible evidence has been provided which has led us to believe the applicant's PRF was in error when considered by the U0504B board and that the requested corrective action is warranted.  Accordingly, we recommend his 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 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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, prepared for the Fiscal Year 2004 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Promotion Selection Board be corrected as follows:

	a.  Section I item 4, DAFSC, to reflect: 012A3C.

	b.  Section I item 5, Organization, Command, Location, to reflect: 934 Operations Group (AMC) Minneapolis Saint Paul IAP ARS MN.

	c.  Section I item 6, PAS Code, to reflect: W31LFDLW.

	d.  Section II, Unit Mission Description, to reflect:  Provides peacetime command and staff functions for subordinate Aerial Port Squadron, Operations Support Flight, Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, and Airlift Squadron.   Peacetime tactical airlift Standardization/Evaluation section augments Airlift Squadron crews upon activation.  Staff Augments Airlift Wing headquarters upon activation.

	e.  Section III item 1, Duty Title, to reflect:  Squadron Navigator.

	f.  Section III item 2, Key Duties, Tasks, Responsibilities, to reflect:  Manages training and evaluation requirements for 21 Squadron, Group, and Wing navigators in accomplishment of their assigned flight and ground duties.  Assists in supervision of the Wing's standardization/Evaluation program for six aircrew specialties and 146 individuals.  Ensures compliance with higher HQ directives and requirements.  Maintains combat-ready qualification in every facet of the unit's mission.  Assists the 96 AS Squadron Commander and Operations Officer in determining policy for tactical and proficiency training.  Manages 96 AS operations in absence of the Director of Operations.  Serves as Mission Commander for unit deployments, exercises and local training missions.

It is further recommended that his corrected record be considered by a Special Board for the Fiscal Year 2004 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Promotion Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01892 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 07, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 28 Jun 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 29 Jul 07, w/atchs.