RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02895 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His duty title be changed from “Commander” to “Detachment Commander.” 2. By way of amendment, the applicant requests he be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2012A (CY12A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His duty title history reflects that during the period of 2007- 2010 he was the squadron commander; however, during this period, he was recommended for Operations Officer, which had a negative progression from a “commander” position. He believes that his record should accurately reflect that he was a detachment commander because it will show an upward progression. His AF IMT 35, Request and Authorization for Assumption of/Appoint to Command, dated 28 Sep 07, reflects that he was appointed Commander of the Detachment 1, 345th Training Squadron. His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major (0-4). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicant’s duty title that is reflected as “Commander” on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) is correct as he was a detachment commander. Changing the duty title would cause redundancy. Additionally, he has not provided any supporting evidence that his records indicate he was a sitting squadron commander during this same time period. The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the advisory opinion, the applicant provided a proposed letter to the CY12A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, in which he stated, in part, the following: 1. He was non-selected by the CY12A lieutenant colonel promotion board and would like to be reconsidered for promotion. It will be noticed that he did not receive a medal from his assignment at Whiteman AFB from 2001-2004. His commander failed to submit many personnel for a medal upon their departure. He is not sure why he did not receive a medal because he did not receive any negative feedback. In fact, it was just the opposite; he was selected as the Company Grade Officer (CGO) of the Quarter and 2003 or Squadron CGO of the Year, which was never documented in his 2003 or 2004 evaluations. 2. He failed to ask why he did not receive a medal after realizing he should have, but it was too late (over 2 years had passed). He provides information from his evaluation to be included in his consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel. The applicant’s complete submission is at 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not suffered either an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 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-2012-02895 in Executive Session on 15 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPALL, dated 30 Jul 12. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 12. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated.