RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04279 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The correct squadron and “B” prefix be added to his 7 Dec 09, duty entry on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB). 2. His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 24 Mar 09 to 5 Jan 10 be replaced with a reaccomplished OPR with better stratifications. 3. He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the P0510A Central Selection Board (CSB). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He verified his duty title as Director of Operations was correct prior to the P0510A CSB convening, but did not realize he was supposed to have a “B” prefix on his DAFSC until he received his Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) for the CY11A Lt Col CSB. During his non-selection counseling session, he was advised the stratifications on his “top” OPR were not very strong and if his leadership was willing to change the OPR to include “stonger” stratifications to submit an appeal. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his CY10A and CY11A Lt Col Line of the Air Force (LAF) CSB OSB, a consolidated single unit retrieval format (SURF), the contested OPR and reaccomplished OPR, and a memorandum. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 August 2006. The applicant submitted two DD Forms 149, Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, US Code, Section 1552. The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to Lt Col by the CY10A and CY11A Lt Col CSBs, which convened on 8 Mar 10 and 7 Mar 11, respectively. The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. However, the ERAB was not convinced there was an error or injustice and disapproved the applicant’s requested relief. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to replace the contested OPR. DPSID states “the willingness of evaluators to change a report is not enough. You must offer clear evidence the original evaluation was unjust or wrong”. The report had been in the applicant’s record since 14 Jan 10 and there was no problem with the OPR until the applicant was not selected for promotion. It was not until he requested non-select counseling and was advised the stratification was not strong and if the rating chain decided to re-accomplish the report a request could be submitted. Requests to add optional statements (such as Professional Military Education (PME), job/commamd “push” recommendation, or stratification) to an evaluation report or PRF will normally not form the basis for a successful appeal. As the statements are not mandatory for inclusion, their omission does not make the report inaccurate. You must prove the report is erroneous or unjust based on its content. In addition, there were additional changes on the re-accomplished OPR which was submitted and no compelling justification for these additional changes from the applicant or the rating chain was provided. DPSID states there is no evidence the original evaluation was inaccurate at the time it was completed nor is there any evidence that an injustice occurred. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAOO5 does not provide a recommendation. DPAOO5 states the applicant’s OSB and SURF did not contain the “B” prefix indicating he was the Director of Operations when his record met the CY10A Lt Col CSB. His OSB did not reflect the correct squadron. Also, his OSB did not reflect the correct squadron for the CY11A CSB. However, the applicant’s record in the military personnel data system (MilPDS) has been corrected to reflect the “B” prefix and the correct squadron. The complete DPAOO5 evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. DPSOO states HQ AFPC/DPAOO5, Weather Officer Assignments, verified that the “B” prefix denoting that he was the Director of Operations was not properly reflected on his DAFSC. However, CSBs evaluate the entire selection record to include the PRF, OPRs, training reports (TRs), letters of evaluation (LOE), decorations, and data on the OSB. The board members assess whole-person factors such as job performance and responsibility, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, academic and PME, and distinctions when rendering their decision. As such, they do not believe the single incorrect DAFSC reflected on his P0510A OSB caused his nonselection for promotion to Lt Col. The applicant mentions in his first application, while reviewing his P0511A OPB he noted an incorrect squadron was reflected in the organization section for his duty title entry effective 7 Dec 09. DPSOO obtained a copy of his P0511A OSB and verified that although it was incorrect on his OPB the “weather squadron” was correctly reflected on his P0511A OSB. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Aug 11, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded the applicant’s records are erroneous or unjust. The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, they have been adequately addressed in the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices of primary responsibility. 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 persuasive 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 an 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- 2010-04279 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 and 24 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSID, Letter, dated 26 Mar 11. Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPAOO5, Letter, dated 9 Jun 11. Exhibit E. HQ AFPC/DPSOO, Letter, dated 29 Jun 11. Exhibit F. SAF/MRBC, Letter, dated 9 Aug 11, w/atchs.