RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00875 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered on him and viewed by the Calendar Year 2009B (P0509B) (8 Jun 09) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be voided and replaced with a PRF generated by his current senior rater. 2. He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col) by the P0509B Lt Col CSB with the corrected PRF. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant presents the following major contentions: 1. Sufficient and relevant evidence exits to prove an injustice occurred during the PRF process and on the PRF itself for the P0509B Lt Col CSB. 2. Due to unfounded rumors and false allegations, a substantive change to his record of performance was created and used to assess his performance-based potential. The untrue allegations were blindly accepted by his Senior Rater and 1st Special Operations Wing (SOW) leaders as fact. 3. The change in his record inaccurately painted him as an officer with decreased performance potential and negatively impacted his promotion opportunity. The biased and prejudicial actions were unjust and prevented him an equal opportunity to compete for promotion. 4. He deployed to Iraq in late Aug 08, working as the J5 Long Range Planner. While deployed he dealt with a supervisor who was continually abusive, dismissive and condescending towards him. He attempted to fix the contentious relationship and when this failed, he notified several senior members of the serious maltreatment he was receiving and its negative impact to the mission. The situation deteriorated to the point he could not effectively accomplish his duties and the mission was severely impacted. He requested to continue working as the J5 Long Range Planner, but no longer under his supervisor’s direct command. After his request was made, he was directed by the Deputy Commander to move to a different office. 5. His leadership used his request to be removed from his supervisor’s abuse as grounds for insubordination. 6. A Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) was initiated charging him with insubordination. The allegations were later unsubstantiated. Unknown to him at the time, the same leadership alleged he had quit his post and stopped working, which witness statements and evidence proved untrue. His deployed commander ignored standard procedures regarding the CDI and his opportunity to defend himself against the charge. His commander forwarded the CDI to his home unit and failed to provide him a copy of the results. 7. His commander used unlawful command influence by falsely accusing CDI witnesses who supported his case of collaboration and matching their testimonies. 8. Because of erroneous information and rumors, a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) and Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) were drafted and processed. He was also notified that he would be receiving a very weak or a “Do Not Promote” PRF for his P0509B Lt Col promotion board. 9. Despite his numerous requests to meet with the Senior Rater and Ops Group Commander (OG/CC) to refute the false charges, he was not afforded the opportunity to present his side of the story or provide evidence refuting the false claims. 10. Both the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) and 1st SOE Chaplain met with his commanders to notify them there was evidence and testimonies, which refuted their false charges against him. Despite these efforts, the Senior Rater and the OG Commander refused to view any of the evidence. 11. The 1st SOW Chaplain became frustrated with the Senior Rater and OG/CC’s unwillingness to view the evidence or listen to witness testimonies refuting the claims against him. As a result, the 1st SOW Chaplain felt compelled to engage the AFSOC Vice Commander (CV) in order to seek assistance in repealing the negative bias against him. 12. Shortly after the Chaplain’s meeting with the AFOSC/CV and less than two weeks prior to his primary Lt Col board convening, the referral OPR and the LOA were mysteriously halted. Although the LOA and Referral OPR were dropped, the negative bias and prejudice from leaders within the 1st SOW continued. 13. This resulted in a negatively influenced PRF being forwarded to the P0509B promotion board. Based on rumors and false accusations, the 1st SOW denied him a deployment and PCS decoration and forwarded a career ending OPR for the record. In support of his request, the applicant provides an 18-page statement with 32 attachments, to include copies of the contested PRF and supplemental PRF, and various documents relating to his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major. The applicant has three non-selections to the grade of Lt Col. A review of the OPRs included in the applicant’s record, reflect overall ratings of “meets standards.” On 16-22 Dec 08, a CDI was conducted to investigate allegations of insubordination by the applicant: ALLEGATION 1. The applicant, at Balad AB, Iraq, on or about 10 Dec 08, behaved himself with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer, by saying to him “I’m not working here anymore,” and “I cannot work in J5,” then contemptuously turning from and leaving him, while he was talking to him. ALLEGATION 2. The applicant, at Balad AB, Iraq, on or about 10 Dec 08, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by his superior commissioned officer, to immediately provide aircrew members with information concerning an upcoming video teleconference, an order which it was his duty to obey, failed to obey the same. The investigating officer concluded that the allegations were UNSUBSTANTIATED, and the appointing authority concurred with the investigating officer. In a previous case before the Board (BC-2010-04722), the applicant requested the Board correct his 1 Jul 09 OPR to reflect “SDE” (Senior Developmental Education) rather than “ISS” (Intermediate Service School); to award him the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for his service from 9 Jul 07 to 5 Jul 09; and his corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of Lt Col (0-5) by an SSB for the CY10A and CY11A Lt Col CSBs. The Board granted relief by removing the IDE statements from his OPR, awarded him the AFCM, and recommended his corrected record meet an SSB for the CY10A and CY11A Lt Col CSBs. The Board felt the IDE statements should altogether be removed, and based on supporting documentation submitted by other Lt Cols at the deployed location, which corroborated a contentious relationship between the applicant and his deployed supervisor, felt there may have been some bias against the applicant and that it appeared the applicant met the criteria for award of an AFCM. Based on the above changes to his record, the Board recommended his corrected record he be considered for promotion to the grade of Lt Col by SSB for CY10A and CY11A _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his current PRF and replace it with a PRF generated by his current Senior Rater within his current command. DPSID states the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) on 10 Mar 06; however, the ERAB was not convinced there was an error/injustice and denied his appeal. DPSID states in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, Paragraph A1.6.1, an evaluator on a PRF will not be substituted or bypassed simply because the original evaluator will not support an application to substitute the contested PRF. Due to the unwillingness by the Senior Rater to substitute a corrected PRF, the applicant appears to have created a “new” PRF, which he claims is endorsed by his new chain of command; however, no new Senior Rater is indicated on the form, nor is the PRF singed by anyone. This would make it an incomplete PRF, and as such can not be considered as a valid substitute of the original PRF. Although the applicant has provided a very lengthy and detailed case, DPSID does not believe that overturning the Senior Rater’s original input into the CSB would be the right or appropriate course of action. The Senior Rater is the person who is placed in the position by the Management Level, to ensure that the best judgment of the officer’s career and future promotion potential is rendered and delivered to the CSB. Additionally, this PRF was subject to the quality review process at the Management Level Review (MLR), in which other senior raters within the Major Command (MAJCOM) had an opportunity to review this PRF, review the Senior Rater’s decision and provide any suggestions to the PRF. The applicant should have pursued all avenues within the original MLR and exhausted these avenues prior to going to his current senior leadership in pursuit of a substituted PRF. His new Senior Rater would not be in any position to rewrite the PRF, as he/she was not in the position occupied when the original PRF was written. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of applicant’s request for SSB consideration. DPSOO states based on the recommendation from DPSID to deny the applicant’s request to substitute the P0509B PRF, they recommend denial for SSB consideration. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provides a 21-page statement reiterating his original contentions; however, in his rebuttal he explains in detail the specific reasons why he feels an injustice and an error occurred. The applicant implicitly disagrees with the Air Force evaluations, and states, the leadership within his current command has generated a supplemental PRF and Validation Sheet as an example PRF to be substituted for the Board’s review and consideration. This unbiased example PRF drafted using the same records present for the P0509B promotion board, correctly and honestly reflects and encompasses his major accomplishments as an Air Force officer. The PRF portrays the leadership potential for promotion to the grade of Lt Col. The applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 warranting relief. In his appeal to this Board, the applicant alleges the contested PRF was an unfair representation of his record of performance. Specifically, the untrue allegations, which were “blindly” accepted by his Senior Rater and 1st SOW leadership, created a substantive change in his record of performance, which negatively impacted his promotion potential. We took note of the emails to the applicant from his Senior Rater who signed the original contested PRF who stated the “incident” in the AOR was not used to prejudice the applicant’s final PRF for the promotion board, also that the PRF the applicant received was a fair representation of his record of performance and standing among his peers, and that he did not believe there was any justification for rewriting the PRF. In a letter dated 12 Nov 10, the board president states that he reviewed his record of performance prior to his primary board before and after his deployment and saw no evidence of any deliberate or sustantative misrepresentation on the final PRF prepared by his Senior Rater. Although the applicant has provided a lengthy and detailed case, the applicant has failed to provide substantial evidence proving the PRF is inaccurate as written. Therefore, we do not believe the applicant has met his burden of proving that he suffered an error or an injustice, or that we should overturn the Senior Rater’s original input to the promotion board. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs 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 evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. 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 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-2011-00875 in Executive Session on 5 Nov 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2011-00875 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Oct 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 20 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Nov 11, w/atchs. Panel Chair