RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04342 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), for the Calendar Year 2012A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CY12A Lt Col CSB) be voided and removed from his record and be granted Supplemental Selection Board (SSB) consideration. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There was a failure to provide any key performance factors from his entire career in Section IV of his PRF. In addition, his Duty Title is incorrect as written and his Key Duties, Tasks, and Responsibilities do not correlate with the Duty Title. He was not afforded the opportunity to review his PRF prior to the promotion board. The combination of inaccuracies and the lack of highlights from his accomplishments in Section IV of the PRF ended any chances of promotion. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and, copies of the contested PRF, Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Memorandum of Instructions, and a Statement of Service. 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 involuntarily discharged effective 30 November 2012 in the grade of major (O-4) for non-continuation. On 4 June 2007, pursuant to a Command-Directed Investigation (CDI), the Investigating Officer substantiated allegations that the applicant committed adultery, paid for sex with a prostitute, and made a false official statement, resulting in conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. As a result, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR). In addition, his Senior Rater recommended a “Do Not Promote This Board” PRF for the applicant to be considered at the CY12A Lt Col CSB. On 20 September 2012, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to void and remove his referral Officer Performance Report, closing 28 April 2007; and, to receive SSB consideration for promotion to Lt Col. For an accounting of the Board’s earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit B. On 12 February 2013, the applicant’s current appeal was administratively closed due to multiple applications being submitted. His appeal was subsequently reopened on 29 April 2013. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the evaluation from the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, dated 10 March 2006. DPSID indicates that in the absence of any contradictory evidence, the Senior Rater used the whole person factors in evaluating the applicant in accordance with AFI 36-2406. Whole person factors include job performance, leadership, professional competence, breadth and depth of experience, job responsibility, academic and professional military education, specific achievements, and the officer’s future promotion potential. Ultimately, it is the Senior Rater’s discretion as to what is documented on the PRF. In addition to the PRF, the Officer Selection Record (OSR) also includes a complete Officer Record of Performance, to include all OPRs and any earned decorations over the officer’s entire career. The PRF is a tool to point promotion board members to the documented record to review accomplishments and impacts about an officer’s performance. It is a direct communication from the Senior Rater to the CSB on an officer’s future promotion potential and is considered to be the senior rater’s best judgment at the time it is completed, based on all the known or provided performance information. However, this is just a recommendation from the senior Rater and the CSB had available the applicant’s entire selection record for review as the accomplishments he references in his appeal were reported in various OPRs and earned decorations spanning his career.. The applicant claims he was not given the opportunity to review the PRF prior to the CSB; however, he has not provided documentation in which he attempted to contact the senior rater to obtain a copy of the PRF. In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Paragraph 8.1.4.5.1 the ratee “contacts the senior rater if he/she has not received a copy of his/her PRF not later than 15 days prior to CSB.” Prior to the CSB, the applicant had the opportunity to discuss any inaccuracies, omissions, or errors pertaining to his PRF. As such, the applicant had the opportunity to correspond with the CSB pertaining to the PRF and any other perceived errors in his record. The applicant’s contends that his Duty Title on the PRF is incorrect as written and the Key Duties, Tasks, and Responsibilities do not correlate with the Duty Title. However, AFI 36-2406, Table 8.1, Rule 10 indicates: “Enter the approved duty title as reflected in the Personnel Data System.” Because of this rule, the proper duty title was, in fact, used on the PRF as it is the Duty Title reflected in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS). Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record and the burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated the contested PRF was not rendered in good faith by the senior rater based on the knowledge available at the time and, has not proven that removal of the contested PRF for the reasons provided, is warranted or justified. He has provided insufficient evidence to corroborate he suffered an injustice or a material error in the preparation of the contested PRF. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 August 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 an error or an injustice. We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find the evidence provided sufficient to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant did not provide any substantiating evidence to prove his assertions that the PRF was rendered inaccurately or unjustly. Therefore, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04342 in Executive Session on 6 February 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04342: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 21 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.