RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03165 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) considered by the Calendar Year (CY) 2006A (CY06A) (P0506A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be corrected to reflect his command in Bagdad. 2. He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY06A Lieutenant Colonel CSB with the corrected record. 3. If granted an SSB, that the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered on him and viewed by the CY06A Lieutenant Colonel CSB be reaccomplished. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and the United States Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF) failed to update his duty history to reflect his command in Baghdad from 19 Apr to 30 Jun 03, even though he held the position for more than sixty days. In Apr 10, he finally managed to correct his duty history. The absence of this duty title entry was a significant factor in him being passed over for promotion to lieutenant colonel in his primary zone. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a letter from the Human Resources Advisor at Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT) J1, an Officer SURF, an AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, an Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) Certificate, his PRF for the P0506A CSB, and an Exception to Policy on Award Memorandum. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major with a date of rank of 1 Apr 02. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 2 Apr 91. A review of the OPRs included in the applicant’s record for the CY06A Board, reflect overall ratings of “meets standards.” The applicant has six nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0506A, P0506C, P0507B, P0508B, P0509B, B0510A and Lieutenant Colonel CSBs. 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; however, the ERAB reviewed his application and was not convinced the PRF was inaccurate or unjust. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force and can be found at Exhibits B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to correct or replace his PRF. DPSID states the applicant was deployed from 19 Apr - 18 Jul 03 as a squadron commander. Beginning in Apr 04, the applicant tried to update his duty title to reflect his information as a deployed commander; however, this is not authorized. The applicant was told by many individuals, to include AFPC and USCENTAF that this was not authorized. When the applicant’s deployed commander Letters of Evaluations (LOEs) were written, they were not required to be filed in the Officer’s Selection Record (OSR) as it was an optional LOE. Although the LOE may not have been in his OSR, his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 17 Sep 02 - 16 Sep 03 clearly stated he was the “first AF LRS CC.” The deployed commander duty title may not have been in his duty history, but the board members could have crossed referenced the comments on the PRF with the OPR. The document, AF Form 77, for deployed commanders, are now placed into the permanent record at the discretion of the Secretary of the Air Force(SECAF)/Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), ensuring the performance is captured into the permanent record. This program was implemented by Military Personnel Flight Memorandum 04-42, dated 25 Oct 04, effective with the 2004 Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) Cycle 5, Pairs 1 and 2, an LOE was mandatory for all deployed officers (AD, Guard, Reserve) through the grade of colonel serving as commanders for 45 days or more in support of named operations. The applicant’s LOE closed out on 18 Jul 03, over a year before the guidance took effect. The policy does not grandfather officers who served in deployed commander positions prior to the 2004 AEF Cycle 5. Although the applicant believes the board may not have seriously taken his responsibility and accomplishments as a commander in a combat zone, there is no evidence to support this. The applicant has failed to provide a reaccomplished report by the original Senior Rater and also get the support of the Senior Rater and the Management Level Review (MLR) president. A report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPASL agrees with the findings of DPSID. DPASL is unable to support the applicant’s request to add “LRS Squadron Commander” to his duty history based on the policies in place at the time of his AEF command. The complete DPASL evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. DPSOO states after a review of the complete application and the advisories prepared by DPSID and DPASL they must recommend denial. On 7 Apr 10, the USAF Human Resources Advisor at USCENTAF updated the duty title entry effective 19 Apr 03 as “Cdr, 447 Exped Log Sq;” however, after receiving proper guidance, the deployed commander duty title was removed. DPSOO states Central boards evaluate the entire selection record to include PRFs, OPRs, officer effectiveness reports, training reports, LOEs, decorations, and data on the OSB. The board members assess whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership and academic and professional military education when rendering their decision. As such, the absence of an unauthorized duty title did not cause his nonselection for promotion to lieutenant colonel. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 14 Apr 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (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. 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, 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2010-03165 in Executive Session on 24 May 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Jan 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPASL, dated 3 Feb 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 24 Feb 11. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 11.