RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01358 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Retention Recommendation Form (RRF) rendered for the July Calendar Year 2010A (CY10A) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) be substituted with the revised RRF provided by his Senior Rater/Management Level Review President. 2. His revised RRF be reconsidered so he can be given a fair opportunity for retention by the SERB. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His contested RRF omitted critical information that had it been present at the time of the SERB, it would have given him a better opportunity to be retained on active duty. His status as a current and qualified HH-60G Instructor Pilot and Evaluator was purposely left out of the contested RRF. Members of his chain of command attempted to include inputs to his RRF; however, their offer was declined by the Division Chief stating he had sufficient information to complete the form. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, revised RRF, current RRF, chain of command statements, electronic communications, Ninety-Day Waiver to Mandatory Retirement Date package, and a Flying History Report. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. __________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who was considered and not selected for retention by the CY10A Lt Col SERB. He subsequently retired in the grade of Lt Col. The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant military service records are contained in the evaluations by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits B and C. __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to substitute his RRF with a reaccomplished RRF.. DPSID states that irrespective of how the applicant feels about the matter, it is up to the senior rater to determine what content is placed on the RRF. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2406, paragraph 8.1.4.1.2., the senior rater must be knowledgeable of the ratee’s most recent performance. 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 on the officer’s duty performance. Neither the senior rater nor the division chief, as the individual who provided input to the senior rater for the RRF, were under any obligation to include the applicant’s input. Nevertheless, the applicant’s referenced inputs were in fact captured in prior Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) which were evaluated along with his RRF at the SERB. There is no evidence provided from the applicant or the senior rater that indicates the senior rater did not have knowledge of this input when the RRF was completed. In addition, the applicant was provided a copy of the RRF prior to the SERB and had an opportunity to review and write a letter to the SERB to address any issues he was concerned with pertaining to his record or the RRF. It appears the applicant made no attempt prior to the SERB convening to contact his senior rater to address any perceived discrepancies on the form, nor made any attempt to address the SERB with any concerns. DPSID indicates the applicant stated that he voluntarily chose not to accomplish Air War College (AWC) due to the fact that he was not seeking promotion beyond the rank of Lt Col. He then asserts his belief that AWC completion was a discriminator at the SERB. The applicant provided an email conversation between him and his senior rater addressing the proposed RRF to be re-accomplished. The only justification he offered for why the RRF should be revised was to mention his one retainable skill of being an HH-60 Instructor/Evaluator Pilot which appears to have been missing on the RRF. The applicant did not provide any strong justification from his senior rater as to why the first RRF was unjust or inaccurate, or why this information should now be included on a revised RRF. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. DPSID contends that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. It is DPSID’s opinion that the applicant has not substantiated that the contested RRF was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial for SSB consideration based on DPSID’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request to substitute the RRF. DPSOO states that in the instructions attached to the Officer Pre-selection Brief (OPB) that each eligible officer meeting the CY10A SERB was provided, it clearly states that officers have the option to write a letter to the board and address any matter of record concerning themselves that they believe is important to their consideration for retention selection. However, the time to have submitted the letter clarifying the omission in his RRF was prior to convening of the original SERB, not after his non-selection for retention. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: He believes he has clearly established that his division chief treated his RRF differently than the others under his purview as evidenced by the statements from his branch chief and deputy division chief included with his appeal. Although he did receive a copy of his RRF prior to the SERB convening, it was literally just a few days and he was told that he had neither recourse nor time to write a letter at that point. He does not believe he would be pursuing a correction had it not been for the fact that he personally knows another Lt Col HH-60 Instructor Pilot in a very similar situation who chose not to pursue AWC and was retained by the same SERB that he met. This fact was the primary motivation for him seeking a correction to his RRF. He is simply asking to have a fair chance to have his RRF replaced with what his senior rater would have said had he taken time to review it thoroughly or had he been given a fair shot by his division chief. He believes he has provided the strong evidence needed to show his senior rater recognized his omission by signing a corrected RRF. The applicant complete rebuttal is at 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. We note the comments contained in the statements of support regarding a lack of opportunity to provide input for the applicant’s RRF; however, we do not find these statements sufficient to establish that the RRF was not properly prepared in accordance with governing Air Force policy. The fact that officers considered by the retention board with similar backgrounds had different outcomes does not establish that the applicant did not receive fair and equitable consideration. Although the applicant states he lacked sufficient time to submit a letter regarding the deficiencies in his RRF, we are not persuaded by the evidence submitted this was the case. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01358 in Executive Session on 14 December 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: ,Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01358: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 31 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Aug 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 13 Sep 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated. Panel Chair 6 4