RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02239 INDEX CODE:	111.00, 131.01 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the P0607A Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) with the inclusion of his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period
16 May 06 to 15 May 07. If this report is not permitted to be filed in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) for the P0607A CSB, he requests that a letter to the board and a letter of evaluation (LOE) authored by the 48 OG/CC meet the board. His last request is that the Air Force policy (AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, and AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation), be fixed to prevent the inequity he identified in the promotion board process.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to the lack of equitable policy guidance provided in the AFI’s and the denial by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) to allow his supervision to submit an official record of his duty performance covering 11 months, the promotion board had no opportunity to view his accomplishments as a squadron commander. He believes the lack of visibility into his recent accomplishments weighed negatively in the board’s ranking of his record when compared with other eligible officers. He states this is an inequity suffered by many officers (but not equally) that could be overcome by simple changes to AFI’s 36-2406 and 36- 2501.

AFI’s 36-2406 and 36-2501 do not address how to officially or unofficially ensure the board has visibility into outstanding duty performance by eligible officers meeting the board. AFI 36- 2406 provides guidance on Annual, Change of Rating Official (CRO), Directed by Headquarters (DBH), and Permanent Change of Station/Assignment (PCS/A) reports but nothing on how supervisors or officers can ensure an officer’s recent record of performance is submitted to meet a promotion board. The AFI does not address the DBH report usage in Table 3.3, page 63, note 11, wherein is stated, “special reports covering outstanding duty performance are not permitted under this rule.” AFPC personnel stated that current policy is (but not in the AFI), “if the individual’s record contains a performance report submitted after the last promotion board, regardless of time frame, a DBH report is not authorized.” His records contained a report which closed out
23 days after his previous board ended.  Following the guidance

in the OPB, he ensured all his records were as current and accurate as they could be.

Historically, to overcome this inequity, commanders have “gamed” the system through use of the CRO to generate a performance report to ensure the “complete record visibility” their personnel will receive during the promotion board. The standard is to CRO the individual to another officer of equal status to their current supervisor for the sole purpose of generating the report. This technique is also not addressed within the AFIs and in the case of a squadron commander, there is no one of equal status to CRO the officer to, so the method cannot be used. The fact that commanders are using a CRO report in this fashion indicates they also perceive an inequity in policy and their view of the importance of the promotion board having the most current duty performance recorded and available to the board in an OPR.

It was determined that an optional LOE could be used to officially document the outstanding duty performance “when attached” to a member’s letter to the board. This is not covered in AFI 36-2406. The written guidance that allows this form to be used in this situation is only found on the AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation.

There is no process in the AFIs to aid members in ensuring Air Force promotion boards have the most current/accurate picture of the eligible officer and this leads to an inequity and injustice to a portion of the officers being considered.

In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own behalf, two letters of support, a copy of his OPR closing out 15 May 07, and a copy of his AF IMT Form 709, Promotion Recommendation.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The P0607A CSB was held on 9 Apr 07; however, the applicant’s OPR did not close-out until 15 May 07. The OPR was not eligible to meet the board and was not required to be on file until 15 Jul 07.

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

Other relevant facts are contained in the Air Force evaluations at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states that the report was prepared in accordance with current Air Force policy, that guidance was available, and that to approve such a request would open the door to everyone who had an evaluation that closed out after a board cutoff date.

The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO states their evaluation requires them to rely on the opinion of other Air Force experts. As such, based on the DPSIDEP recommendation, they recommend denial for SSB consideration. However, should the Board grant an SSB, DPSOO recommends denying the applicant’s request to write a letter to the P0607A CSB because he had the opportunity to write a letter prior to the board, but elected not to do so.

The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Current policy dictates that if an officer has an OPR placed in his records following the last promotion board they are not authorized to have additional OPRs entered into their files unless there is a change of rating official (CRO) or has a permanent change of station (PCS). This policy creates an inequity in record content when they are presented to the promotion board. The end effect may result in as much as a year’s worth of accomplishments by the member not being considered by the board. The answer to this is to shift the responsibility or burden on the member to document their performance in the form of a letter to the board. He states there are numerous Air Force instruction prohibitions against members writing their own OPRs and performance recommendation forms (PRFs), but this is contradicted by tasking the member to write a letter to the board. It is the responsibility of the system and supervisors to ensure the most current information is available to the board in an official record. It is the member’s responsibility to address errors. Letters to the board do not carry the weight of official records and may have unforeseen consequences as recognized by AFI 36-2501, paragraph 2.10.3.2. He has spent his entire career working at ensuring the policies he implemented were equitable, and if not, finding a way to fix them and AFPC should as well.

In regard to DPSIDR’s statement about the policy being in place for 20 years, this does not mean the policies are equitable to, as a minimum, the majority of officers. The policy has failed to keep up with technological changes that now enable reports to be completed and added to an individual’s records in mere weeks.

The unfortunate “cutoffs” should be equitable to all and not range from 1 to 364 days depending on when the last report was written. A cutoff of 90 days prior to the board for all eligibles would not only be significantly more equitable, it would provide a level playing field, and is now (and was then) technologically possible.

His supervisors at the time went up the chain to AFPC trying to get the information in his records but were not provided the same information as his current leadership in support of the 2008 board.

It is reasonable to expect the AFI to provide information on an existing venue to the majority of candidates meeting the board on how to get a signed LOE (which carries significantly more weight than a stand-alone letter) to the board.

AFPC/DPSIDR misinterpreted his intentions as contesting the PRF and added that any significant outstanding accomplishments could have been added. A PRF has very limited space and sums up a career. He states he is not contesting the PRF but the inability to get almost a year’s worth of his accomplishments in front of the board in a signed document that would be viewed with credibility.

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit F.

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. However, since the OPR was not required to be on file at the time of the promotion board in accordance with established policy, we find no evidence of an error in this case and are not persuaded by his assertions that he has been the victim of an injustice. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Regarding his contentions pertaining to current Air Force policy, we are compelled to note that in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, the authority of this Board is limited to the correction of errors and removal of injustices in Air Force records. This particular portion of his request is a matter of policy and does not fall within our area of authority.   Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
1.	
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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- 2008-02239 in Executive Session on 20 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Chair 
Member 
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 6 Jun 08. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Officer Selection Record. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 Jul 08. Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 22 Sep 08.
Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 08. Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 20 Oct 08.