RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02793 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Officer Pre Selection Brief (OPB), in the Developmental Opportunity block be changed to indicate “IDE Select.” 2. His corrected record receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 2011A (CY11A) and the CY12B Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Medical Service Corps (MSC) Central Selection Boards (CSBs) for which he was eligible below-the-promotion zone (BPZ). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The OPB is the only source document of what will appear on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) seen by the CSB. Errors on the OPB left uncorrected could have a negative effect on an officer’s promotion opportunity. In accordance with (IAW) the Personnel Service Delivery Memorandum (PSDM), when officers are selected to attend Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) in-residence, the "Developmental Opportunity" block on an OPB should read "IDE Select." Once he discovered the error, he made three attempts to have the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) correct this mistake; however, it was to no avail. The OPB should have been corrected in the fall of 2010 when he was selected as an Air Force Fellow, which makes him eligible for Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) equivalent credit. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his OPB for the CY11A CSB; an extract from the promotion board announcement; his letter of notification selecting him as an Air Force Fellow, and other various documents associated with his request. The applicant complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Jun 09. He was considered and nonselected by the CY11A and CY12B Lt Col CSBs, which convened on 7 March 11 and 16 Jul 12, respectively. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPF recommends denial of his request to change his OPB to reflect select in the Developmental Opportunity block and noted the applicant is not a "Select." IAW AFI 36-2301, Developmental Education, para 6.3., members identified as "Selects" are designated “Selects” by their promotion board; however, the applicant was not designated as a “Select” by his promotion board. Further, HQ USAF/A1 eliminated the process of identifying Non-Line officers as "Selects" from all central promotion boards as stated in policy change memorandum dated 30 Nov 07, “Policy Change to Developmental Education Quotas for Promotion Board." Since he was designated by the Developmental Education Designated Board (DEDB) to attend the Air Force Fellows program he was a “Designee." Additionally, since he has completed the IDE program, the "Designee" block code will no longer reflect on his OPB (block codes are set to expire upon graduation). The complete DPAPF evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial, stating, in part, after careful review of his application, no evidence was found to show the applicant's nonselections for promotion to the grade of Lt Col by the CY11A (BPZ) and CY12B (BPZ) Lt Col MSC Boards were a result of a material error or injustice. The applicant had the option to write a letter prior to the board, but he chose not to do so. Further, to grant his request would be unfair to the other nonline officers who are also DE selects and do not have their Developmental Opportunity populated on their OSBs. The PSDM the applicant refers to define a "Select" as being a select for developmental education (DE) by a promotion board. Nonline officers are not selected for DE by a promotion board. Therefore, their developmental opportunity block will always be blank. This is supported by the evaluation provided by DPAPF. The applicant believes he was harmed at the CY11A board. In AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, para 2.10, and in the OPB instructions that each eligible officer is provided prior to meeting a CSB, 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 promotion. The applicant did not write a letter to the board. We do note that his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY11A board states that he was selected for an OSD internship. As for the statistics provided by the applicant, only those officers who already completed resident IDE as of the board convening date fell into the 40 percent select rate. Even if his OSB indicated he was a select, he fell into the category of IDE by correspondence or seminar and an advanced degree with a Promote where the select rate was 13 percent. In regard to the CY12B AF management level review (MLR), the applicant was an AF Level Student and his PRF indicated he was an IDE Fellow-Strat Policy Fellow. In addition, his Duty Qualification History Brief (DQHB) assignment history reflected that he was attending IDE. For the CY12B Lt Col board, completion of IDE in-residence in 2012 was documented on his selection brief. Therefore, both the MLR and the Central Board were aware of his resident IDE. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Aug 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note that promotion board guidance can be somewhat confusing, DPSOO notes, the applicant had the option to provide a letter to the promotion board, if he so desired, to explain the circumstances surrounding his selection as an “Air Force Fellow.” In regard to the CY11A board, it appears the applicant was incorrect in his understanding of how his status as a “Fellow” should be reflected on his OSB because the PDSM clearly specifies that “Select” in the developmental opportunity block is indicated if selected for developmental education by a promotion board. In addition, it refers health professionals to their career manager. Further, for his stats at the time of the CY12B MLR and promotion consideration, the applicant’s PRF identified him as an IDE Fellow, as well, it was reflected on his OSB, therefore, the MLR and the board was aware of his resident IDE status. In view of the above and 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-02793 in Executive Session on 14 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPAPF, dated 16 Jul 12. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 21 Aug 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 12.