RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04587

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of Colonel (O-6) by the CY13C Colonel Selection Board (CSB).

The provided Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be reviewed by the SSB.    

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The copy of the PRF he received is different from the copy that was placed in his electronic personnel records after the board concluded.  He has no way to verify which version of the PRF met the board; therefore, he cannot be assured he reviewed the version which met the board as required by AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, paragraph 1.6.  

He discovered the discrepancy during a routine review of his electronic records.  As the two versions are different, this constitutes a material administrative error as set forth in AFI 36-2501, paragraph 6.3.1.1.  For this reason, he requests SSB consideration using the PRF version provided.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is in the Regular Air Force currently serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5).  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C thru E.      

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID states no further action is required by their office on the PRF as the applicant’s Automated Records Management (ARMS) record reflects the correct PRF for the P0613C board as of 30 October 2014 [sic].   

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2S concurs with the recommendation of DP2SP to deny the request for SSB consideration. The applicant’s record does not contain a material administrative error.  The correct P0613C PRF met the CSB.  DP2SP contacted the Management Level Review Office which processes all PRFs.  They confirmed they processed a stop file on the applicant’s P0613C PRF.  The original PRF was replaced with the new PRF as indicated on the PRF with the annotation “New” on the right-hand corner.  It is the same report that was filed in the Personnel Records Display Application and the report that met the P0613C CSB.  AFPC/DPSID confirmed that the applicant’s ARMS record reflects the correct PRF as of 30 October 2013.  The applicant has one non-selection for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY13C Colonel CSB which convened on 4 November 2013.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SP evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/JA states the PRF the applicant wants considered by his promotion board was the PRF the board considered.  If he was not provided a copy of the updated PRF before the promotion board, that was an error; but a harmless error that had no impact on the promotion board’s consideration, since it based its decision on the exact PRF the applicant wanted.  

There is no reason to disbelieve the applicant’s statement that he was provided one PRF but then saw a different PRF in his electronic record.  However, the evidence is clear that the PRF he wants considered was the one seen by the promotion board.  A SSB is not warranted for a harmless error.  The officer promotions instruction states that an SSB may be granted for a material administrative error.  If the updated PRF had not been used by the promotion board, it might have been a material administrative error; particularly, given the stronger language of the updated PRF but the updated PRF met the board and did not contain any additional errors, so a SSB is not warranted.  AFPC/JA views this as a harmless error.  

The applicant should have been provided a copy of the updated PRF before the promotion board convened.  AFI 36-2406, paragraph 8.5 states the senior rater must notify the affected officer (in writing or, if verbal, follow-up in writing) of the intent to change the PRF.  The officer is provided a copy of the PRF to allow identification of possible errors for correction.  The 

applicant does not allege any errors in the updated PRF and a review found no errors; indeed, the only substantive change was to make the “push” line even stronger, changing “Promote” to “Definitely promote!”

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The error he pointed out is a material administrative error, not merely a harmless error as determined by AFPC/JA.  The JA opinion correctly quotes the AFI that the senior rater must notify the affected officer of changes to the PRF, this simply did not happen.  He has also not been presented with anything that proves, one way or the other, which PRF actually met the board, regardless of the senior rater’s intent of signing two different forms. 

The careless error he was subjected to makes him skeptical of the greater process.  The checks and balances officers deserve are not keeping the promotion process error free.  The JA opinion is misguided in that the intent of the AFI is to protect the process from administrative errors and the process in his case is in error.  The only way he and his peers can maintain faith in the promotion process is to have his promotion reconsidered by a SSB, with a guarantee the stronger PRF is considered.  It is a simple request from a 34 year Air Force veteran.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

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 injustice.  While we note the PRF was not rendered upon the applicant in accordance with the governing instruction, in view of the evidence of record which reflects the promotion board considered the stronger PRF, we are persuaded there was no material error to warrant granting the applicant’s request for an SSB.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2014-04587 in Executive Session on 7 July 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 February 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 December 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 9 February 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 25 February 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 March 2016.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 March 2016.