RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04556 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Distinguished Graduate (DG) honors from Instructor Navigator (IN) School in June 2002 be included in his official transcripts and on his Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF), specifically his in-the-zone and one above-the-zone PRFs. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. Shortly after returning from IN school where he earned DG honors, he received orders for a temporary (TDY) assignment to Japan. As soon as he returned from that TDY, he received a permanent change of station (PCS) assignment to attend undergraduate pilot training (UPT) at Vance AFB, OK. Because the entire IN class did not graduate at the same time, DG notification was delayed until after his 3 August 2002 PCS. 2. His officer performance report (OPR) was already in administrative coordination and because training reports are supposed to include DG information for official transcripts, his PCS OPR only stated that he had earned a recommendation for DG, as opposed to earned DG honors. He was also unable to review the OPR prior to his PCS. 3. Following UPT he had a PCS to Luke AFB for F-16 training where he was selected for promotion to the grade of Major. He missed any record review opportunities during the writing of his PRF for his Major's promotion board. Prior to his 2-below board for Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col), he was on a non-voluntary assignment to Korea when his promotion recommendation form (PRF) was written in the spring of 2008. It was then that he noticed that his record did not contain his DG honors or associated training reports. Although he notified his senior rater that he had indeed earned DG honors, he could not prove it because his certificate and DG notification letters were locked in non- temporary storage while he was in Korea. 4. In 2008, he had a PCS assignment to another base in South Korea for back-to-back non-voluntary assignments in Korea. He remained in Korea until October 2010. His records of DG honors were still locked in non-temporary storage until he arrived at his current duty location. He did not receive his non-temporary storage until 1 March 2011 The promotion boards he has met, thus far, were met while his DG notification letter and certificate were stuck in non-temporary storage and his training report was never included in his digital transcripts. 5. He was passed over for Lt Col. He has no idea if the DG honors would have changed that outcome, but believes it could have improved his chances for promotion. 6. Upon receiving his non-temporary storage shipment, he immediately started an appeal to correct the erroneous OPR in spring 2011. He was eventually told that OPRs cannot have DG information on them and that the appropriate avenue was a training report. He does not have a training report that mentions his DG honors in his records. He obtained an OPR memorandum of mitigation from his previous, 2002, squadron commander but it had little effect on his appeal and was rejected. In an effort to change his PRFs, he attempted to contact previous raters but was not successful. He feels he has exhausted all administrative remedies as he has tried corrective procedures and appeals provided in regulations. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his Distinguished Graduate Notification Letter, Distinguished Graduate Certificate, congratulatory letters, and his 6 Mar 2002 thru 2 Aug 2002 contested OPR with memorandum of mitigation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving as a Regular Air Force commissioned officer in the grade of Major (O-4) with an effective date of rank of 01 May 2006. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) and Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) are 26 May 1996. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to correct the contested PRFs. DPSID states that based on the lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the PRFs, they recommend that no changes be made to the contested PRFs. To alter the current PRF would circumvent the integrity of the existing PRFs as originally completed by the Senior Rater who has the sole responsibility to determine its content. 2. The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 Mar 2006. He requested his mitigation letter be attached to the 2 August 2002, OPR for explanation of the DG bullet. However, the ERAB reviewed this application and was not convinced that the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and denied the applicant's request for relief. 3. What the applicant may not realize is that since this is not common practice to have a letter attached to an OPR (unless for derogatory referral reports), it could have actually had a reverse effect and possibly brought on negative attention to his record given that the OPR was completed in 2002 and the mitigation explanation letter was dated over 10 years later; especially when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating due diligence when correcting a record. In any case, they would argue that this letter is inappropriate for permanent filing as it could actually create more harm than a favorable outcome; particularly, when a date on a document is 10 years after the original document was signed. 4. The applicant contended that he did not receive an AF Form 475, Education Training Report and one could not be located. He merely received an OPR documenting he earned recommendation for DG in IN school. He believes the DG honors not being documented on his PRFs could have been a contributing factor for being passed over to Lt Col. However, the applicant was advised via the ERAB appeals process that the DG marking is only authorized to be documented on an AF Form 475, in accordance with AFI 36- 2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, chapter 6, paragraph 6.2.1.1, which states that mandatory submission of training reports are upon completion or interruption of, or elimination from, formal training or education when the scheduled course length is eight weeks or more or as authorized in this chapter when the specific course is less than eight weeks (SOS, Chaplain programs, Aerospace Basic Course and COT). 5. They concede that the applicant has demonstrated that an error/injustice exists in the absence of the AF Form 475 to record his DG accomplishment. Accordingly, in an effort to make the applicant's record “whole”, they recommend the Board direct that an AF Form 475 be reaccomplished by the appropriate schoolhouse to document his accomplishment of being a Distinguished Graduate. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. The applicant responded by reiterating his previous contention that he was stationed in Korea involuntarily for two consecutive assignments (3 years total) and did not have access to his non-temp storage items. Consequently, he was unable to obtain proof of his DG honors until 1 March 2011, well after his Lieutenant Colonel promotion boards. 2. He fully understands now that even though he had source documents consisting of a DG certificate and a notification letter, they do not constitute an official record for PRF justification since they are not on an AF Form 475. As such, he understands that to ask a previous senior rater to change an old PRF based on those source documents is the incorrect avenue. 3. The applicant indicates that he disagrees with the AFPC/DPSID suggestion that a letter to the board with no proof would have had a negative effect on his promotion. Nevertheless, he fully concurs with their recommendation to re- accomplish the AF Form 475 and he is willing to abandon, or postpone if necessary, attempts to change his previous PRFs until he gets a re-accomplished AF Form 475. 4. He additionally requests that his case be expedited and that he meet a supplemental board to re-evaluate his promotion given that a new AF Form 475 with DG honors significantly strengthens his chances of being promoted and surely constitutes an error or injustice in accordance with the AFPC/DPSID findings. The applicant’s complete response 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 an error or injustice warranting favorable action on the applicant’s request that his Distinguished Graduate (DG) honors from Instructor Navigator (IN) School in June 2002 be included on his in the zone and one above-the-zone Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF). After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we see no evidence of error or impropriety in the PRF processing and are not persuaded by the applicant's contentions, that he has been the victim of an injustice. In this respect, we note that the applicant was advised via the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) appeals process that the DG marking is only authorized to be documented on an AF Form 475, Education Training Report, in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System. Therefore, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility’s rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. Notwithstanding our decision above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice with respect to documenting the applicant’s selection as a distinguished graduate from IN school. In support of his contention, the applicant provides credible evidence in the form of the Distinguished Graduate Certificate, notification letter and congratulatory letters as well as a letter of mitigation from his former commander. In light of the aforementioned evidence, the applicant’s concurrence with the proposed recommendation and the support the applicant received from his commander we are in agreement with the Air Force office of primary responsibility’s recommendation that an AF Form 475 be accomplished to document his Distinguished Graduate accomplishment. We also recommend that his corrected record be considered for any boards for which the accomplished TR was not a matter of record. Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected in the following manner. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a. The Air Force Instructor Navigator School accomplished an AF Form 475, Training Report (TR), for the period of 2 April 2002 through 21 May 2002, documenting “Distinguished Graduate” and the TR be signed as of 28 May 2002, and then placed in the applicant’s official record in its proper sequence. b. It is further recommended that his record, to include the accomplished TR, be considered for promotion by any boards for which the accomplished TR was not a matter of record. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 11 July 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04556: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 September 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 February 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 February 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, APPLICANT, dated 4 March 2013.