RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04690 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. vxHis Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered on him for the Calendar Year 2010B (CY10B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB) be rewritten by his new wing chaplain. 2. He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His two PRFs were written by the wing chaplain who wrote his 2008 and 2009 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) that were voided by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). The AFBCMR voided the OPRs because they considered the reports to be unfair and possibly biased. The same wing chaplain would not be fair and unbiased in writing his PRFs. The wing chaplain would not change his second PRF and this was the reason he was not selected for promotion to major. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 2009 and 2010 PRFs, AFBCMR documents, AF IMT 3538, Retention Recommendation Form, and Memorandums to the promotion boards. 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 captain with a date of rank of 27 Oct 00. He has two nonselections to the grade of major by the CY09C and CY10B Major CSBs. On 7 Oct 09, the applicant submitted an application for correction of military records to have his OPRs closing 29 Apr 08 and 29 Apr 09 voided; his request was approved by the AFBCMR, and he was granted SSB consideration. On 27 Sep 10, he met an SSB, but was not selected for promotion. He did not 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 reviewed and returned the application without action. The ERAB will not consider nor approve requests to change (except for deletions) an evaluator’s rating or comments if the evaluator does not support the change. The applicant failed to provide the ERAB with a copy of the reaccomplished report and any supporting documentation in which the evaluators support the change. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence the PRF is unjust or inaccurate. The applicant’s previous and current AFBCMR request only mentions that the wing chaplain who wrote the voided OPRs and PRFs could not be rendered in good faith. However, the applicant fails to mention in his request his concern regarding the Senior Rater who signed the original CY10B PRF. IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 8.1.4.1.2, the senior rater may request subordinate supervisors provide information on an officer’s most recent duty performance and performance-based potential and may ask for suggestions based upon the officer’s duty performance for PRF recommendations. Although the applicant believes the PRF was not rendered in good faith due to the conflict between himself and the wing chaplain, there is no documentation to state the Senior Rater was biased or there was a conflict. The applicant has failed to provide the required documentation of the concurrence of both the Senior Rater and Management Level Review (MLR) president to have the PRF corrected. To change Section IV of the PRF, the Senior Rater needs to demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF, a material error in the record of performance which substantially impacted the content of the PRF, or a material error in the process by which the PRF was crafted. In all instances, the requested change to Section IV must be related to the documented error. The applicant has failed to prove the Senior Rater did not render the contested PRF in good faith. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. DPSOO states based on the recommendation from DPSID to deny the applicant’s request to substitute the P0410B PRF, they recommend denial for SSB consideration. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 Mar 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 D). _________________________________________________________________ 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-2010-04690 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2010-04690 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Jan 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 14 Mar 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11.