RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02715 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 2006A Colonel Central Selection Board be revised and that he receive special selection board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The 18th Air Force (18AF) commander did not complete his PRF; a wing executive officer recycled an old one. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, para 8.1.4, prohibits the use of previous PRFs for promotion actions. The 18AF violated AFI 36-2406, para 8.1.4.1, when he signed a PRF he did not prepare- his predecessor did! AFI 36-2406, Table 8.1 NOTE (e) “Do not comment on ratings or recommendations from prior AF Forms 709.” In support of his request applicant provided a personal statement, copies of his CY05A and CY06A PRFs, emails, a summary of the 92AW colonel candidates. 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. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY06A and the CY07A Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSB). The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, it was returned without action due to lack of supporting documentation. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial and states the information the applicant is requesting to be included is prohibited and the information he claims to be missing was available to the board through other means in the applicant’s record. Additionally, by not taking action when he took other actions pre-board, it is evident the applicant was not motivated by purported injustices in his PRFs, but by promotion nonselection. The purpose of the appeals process is not to give the applicant additional opportunities to meet additional promotion boards, but to correct errors or injustices. We do not find either in this case; the PRF complies with Air Force Policy The applicant did not provide the supporting documentation required by AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. However, he explains how he has requested, and has failed to obtain the support he requires from his rating chain. His senior rater believes the report is an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance and refuses to reaccomplish the PRF. After review, DPSIDE found no administrative errors in the contested PRF itself. Previously used wording is not prohibited in PRFs; therefore, using wording from previous reports does not make the report inaccurate. The applicant contends his senior rater did not write his PRF; that his predecessor did, that an executive officer recycled his previous PRF. Although believable, the applicant provided no evidence that supports his allegation. In fact, to the contrary, he provided an email from the senior rater stating he personally worked on his PRF despite the applicant’s allegations. Personal opinions and unsubstantiated conjecture about what may or may not have happened, or why the PRF turned out the way it did, does not strengthen his case; he must provide substantiated evidence that supports his contentions. The applicant contends that none of his input was utilized in preparation of his PRF. While the senior rater can request input, he is not obligated to use it. Additionally, the PRF is only one document among many that make up the record of performance available to the board. It is not the sole document used to make promotion decisions. The information the applicant claims to be missing was available to the board in the applicant’s records. The applicant contends previous PRF lines should not be used on future PRFs, however, he expects his recommendation to carry over from year to year. For example, because he received a “DP” last year, he believes he should also get one this year. Previous PRF ratings have no impact on current or future recommendations. The pool of eligibles varies from year to year, changing the dynamics of who will be awarded the “DPs” each year. Additionally, there could be a change in duty performance; change in senior rater; change in status, below-the-zone (BPZ) to in-the-zone (IPZ), etc. AFPC/DPSIDE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO concurs with the recommendation from AFPC/DPSIDE. AFPC/DPSOO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 November 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's complete submission, we find no evidence which would lead us to believe the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility adequately address those allegations. In regards to the applicant’s contention that the PRF was not written by the senior rater but by someone else, we note the senior rater communicated with the applicant stating he had personally worked his PRF and that he was comfortable that the wording of the PRF properly characterized his performance. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 probable 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- 2007-02715 in Executive Session on 17 January 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-02715 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 07, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 12 Oct 07. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 5 Nov 07. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Nov 07.