RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00735 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be changed to reflect he received a “definite promote (DP).” 2. He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel (0-6) by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2007A (CY07A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He was prevented from being considered for rank specific schools, command selection, and other PCS opportunities prior to and after his in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) board convened. While assigned to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as the Operations Officer a bias occurred that had a direct impact on his 2007 officer performance report (OPR) and IPZ PRF recommendations from his additional rater and senior rater. He was not aware that he could write to the promotion board to alert them of his situation. During his tour with the JSF, there were multiple programmatic slips due to engineering and early production issues that prevented him from meeting his career path progression. In Aug 06, he met with the 412th Commander regarding his Senior Developmental Education (SDE) and Command selection opportunities. It was after his discussion with the commander that it became clear his chain of command had decided to keep him assigned to the JSF in lieu of being reassigned to attend in-residence SDE. 2. In Sep 06, he applied to the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) Commanding Officer Selection Board; however, in Oct 06, his commander returned from the selection board and advised him that his name would not be on the list. His commander stated the board wanted to send him to a Test Squadron Command, so he pulled his package because he needed him at the JSF. He was told by his commander not to worry that there was a plan. In late Oct 06, he discussed his situation of non-selection for Command with Col C who told him that he had talked to the wing commander who also stated he had a plan and not to worry. In Feb 07, he received his IPZ PRF that included a statement on line nine which reflected “My next DP! F-35’s flight test ops officer, in place due to critical JSF need! DP now, then SDE and OG/CC!” It was his understanding the TW/CC had drafted the words to articulate the bias for the senior rater which had made it necessary for him to be retained at Edwards AFB for JSF. 3. He applied for instructor duty; however, he was informed the commander would not endorse or forward his application. In Aug 07, he was passed over for 0-6 IPZ and received a non-selection briefing. During the briefing he was told he was strongly in the gray zone; he lacked commander time, school in-residence and/or a DP. It was noted that each element was critical due to his interservice transition from the Marine Corps to the Air Force. 4. In Jan 08, he accomplished the programmatic milestone of becoming an initial government F-35 test pilot and was allowed to coordinate PCS orders. 5. In Aug 08, he contacted Col B and Col C in an effort to gain their support by providing an affidavit concerning the potential bias surrounding the needs of the Air Force that prohibited him from being selected for SDE or command. In support of his request, Col C provided a memorandum; however, Col B asked for additional time to review his records. After review, Col B stated “I called AFMC to recall the board details; you did not score well enough to become a commander.” Col C also stated “I did not pull your package from board consideration and you must have misunderstood the conversation from Oct 2006” and “had there been intent to select you for other than JSF Flight Test Command, I would have fought it.” 6. He requested the Air Force Inspector General (IG) office to investigate his situation; however, the IG determined not to investigate the matter as no clear AFI had been violated. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of letters of support and e-mail communications. His 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 (0-5). He was non-selected four times to the grade of colonel by the CY07A, CY08A, CY09A, and the CY09D Colonel CSBs. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the request to award a “DP” or to reaccomplish the PRF. DPSIDEP only addresses the Officer Performance Report (OPR) and PRF issue. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB reviewed the application and is not convinced the OPR or PRF are inaccurate or unjust and recommends denial. In addition, the applicant did not provide any supporting documentation from the senior rater and management level review president IAW the governing AFI to support his contentions. Although he did take the matter to the IG, they dismissed the case because no clear AFI had been violated. DPSIDEP also states the applicant does not specifically address what error or injustice he alleges with the contested OPR; however, he requests the “P” be changed to a “DP” on his PRF. As far as the applicant’s contention there was a period of command bias or injustice which prevented him from consideration for rank specific school, command selection or PCS ultimately impacting his record, DPSIDEP disagrees stating his OPR has an assignment recommendation; a school recommendation; and a stratification statement of “#1 of 11.” DPSIDEP notes the non- select counselor is only able to give the applicant recommendations on why he/she perceives the reason(s) for non-selection. As for the “DP” recommendation, the applicant received the next best push, not only a PME and command push of “My next DP!” and “DP now” on the bottom line of the PRF. The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of his request for SSB consideration. After reviewing DPSIDEP’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request for award of a “DP” or reaccomplish the PRF, DPSOO recommends denial for SSB consideration. In addition, as instructed by the Officer Preselection Brief, it clearly states that officers have the option to write a letter to the board and address any matter of record concerning themselves they believe is important to their consideration for promotion; however, the time to submit the letter is prior to the convening of the original board, not after non-selection for promotion. The DPSOO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responds by stating he is concerned that neither DPSIDEP nor DPSOO attempted to understand the specific situation which created a lack of career enhancing information in his record, and it appears, deferred to each other without making an independent evaluation. He also reiterates his original contentions and asks to be granted SSB consideration in order to have the opportunity to provide the details that have been made available to him, his former commanders, and additional supporters. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, 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 with regard to the applicant’s request that his PRF be changed to reflect a “DP.” We took note of his contentions of why his PRF should be changed; however, in the absence of support from the senior rater and the management level review president, we do not find an adequate basis to change his PRF. Therefore, we agree with the Air Force Evaluation Programs office and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice in this matter. 4. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice with regard to the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. In this respect, the Board majority believes that given the persuasive testimony of the applicant and the Vice Admiral, the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to be considered by the CY07A Colonel CSB only if he writes a letter to the board. Therefore, the majority of the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 5. 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 RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that contingent upon him writing a letter to the board president, be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for Calendar Year 2007A (CY07A) Colonel Central Selection Board. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00735 in Executive Session on 23 April 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as recommended. XXX voted to deny the applicant’s request and submitted a Minority Report, which is at Exhibit G. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 Mar 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 23 Apr 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Jun 10. Exhibit G. Minority Report, dated 16 Dec 10.