RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02404

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the P0313A Captain Selection Process be removed and she be considered for promotion to the grade of captain.

2.  Her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods indicated below be voided and removed from her records:

	10 Mar 11 – 15 Sep 11
	16 Sep 11 – 15 Sep 12
	16 Sep 12 – 15 Jan 13

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was never notified of her “Do Not Promote (DNP)” recommendation on her PRF, due to fitness failures; denied rights to appeal and to have the PRF corrected.  She passed her fitness test in Mar 13.  

Her medical conditions and medication, including high doses of steroids contributed to her difficulties with passing her fitness assessments and maintaining physical fitness standards.  These medical conditions eventually led to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and a medical retirement.

Her “DNP” was an act of reprisal for filing an Inspector General (IG) complaint against her commander.

She was never notified of her consideration for promotion to the grade of captain for the P0312A board or that she received a “DNP” recommendation until she was notified of her non-selection for promotion.  She was given her non-select letter by a senior officer who was not a member of her unit or her rater.

Her report closing in 2011, was completed by the wrong rater due to assignments changes and she did not know the rater who completed the report; the report was rushed; bullets were not correct and she did not receive feedback.

Her report closing in 2012 was completed by an interim commander; however, she did not know her and was signed by members who did not have direct supervision over her.  The report reflects 365 days of supervision; however, this was not possible due to deployments/leave/temporary duty.

She had a Command-Directed OPR closing 15 Jan 13 only four months after her annual report was completed, which was a referral report due to fitness failure.  However, she passed her physical fitness test, on 04 Mar 13 prior to this report becoming a matter of record.  Her supervisor at the time stated he would be able to change the OPR to reflect meets standards since she had passed her PT test; however, her commander stated it could not be changed due to closeout date. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 10 Mar 09.

On 18 Mar 10, the applicant received a report rendered for the period 10 Mar 09 – 9 Mar 10 that reflects “Meets Standards.”  

On 15 Mar 11, the applicant received a referral report rendered for the period 10 Mar 10 – 9 Mar 11 that reflects “Does Not Meet Standards,” for failure to meet fitness standards.  On 26 Mar 11, the applicant appealed the report.

On 12 Oct 11, the applicant received a referral report rendered for the period 10 Mar 11 – 15 Sep 11 that reflects “Does Not Meet Standards,” for failure to meet fitness standards.  On 12 Oct 11, the applicant elected not to appeal the report.

On 25 Sep 12, the applicant received a referral report rendered for the period 16 Sep 11 – 15 Sep 12 that reflects “Does Not Meet Standards,” for failure to meet fitness standards.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 25 Sep 12.

On 25 Feb 13, the applicant received a referral report rendered for the period 16 Sep 12 – 15 Jan 13 that reflects “Does Not Meet Standards,” for failure to meet fitness standards.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 21 Mar 13.

On 27 Sep 13, the applicant was relieved from active duty, and on 28 Sep 13, she was permanently disability retired in the grade of first lieutenant, with a compensable percentage for physical disability of 30 percent.  She was credited with 4 years, 6 months, and 18 days of active service for retirement.  

According to a Memorandum to the Chief of Staff, dated 15 Jul 13, the AFBCMR corrected the applicant’s record to show that her Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 4 May 12 was voided and removed from her records.
According to SAF/IG, there is no record the applicant filed an IG complaint.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force OPRs, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial to void the PRF and the contested OPRs.

DPSID notes, on 27 Aug 2013, the applicant submitted an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 Mar 06, but due to her separation from active duty the appeals case was closed automatically by the system.

Additionally, the applicant contends that she was not notified of the DNP Recommendation.  AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 8.2.3.1.5 states: “The Senior Rater provides the ratee a copy of the PRF (hand-delivered or sent in a sealed envelope clearly marked, ‘To Be Opened By Addressee Only’) approximately 30 days before the Central Selection Board (CSB).  PRFs are a private matter between the senior rater and the ratee.  In researching the applicant’s file, she submitted a rebuttal letter to the CY13A Non-Line Quarterly Captain Selection Process, dated 22 Mar 13, which was submitted to the Management Level Review (MLR) for consideration.  

The applicant had six consecutive fitness failures dated 29 Jan 11, 8 Mar 11, 19 Jul 11, 4 May 12, 24 Aug 12, and 4 Dec 12.  The applicant filed an AFBCMR to void one of the fitness failure on 4 May 12 and it was approved; however, there are still five fitness failures.  The applicant provided her AFIMS record and the record reflects the remaining five FAs.  Due to the information provided by the applicant, and lack of substantiating documentation provided in the case, the referral comments located in the OPRs is considered valid and appropriate as recorded on the contested evaluation [sic], and IAW all applicable Air Force policies and procedures.  

The applicant has not provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove her assertions the contested PRF and evaluations were rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered her view of events in the light that is most beneficial to her.  Therefore to change or void these  evaluations would be an injustice to other Airman which have consulted with the appropriate channels and received the proper guidance regarding the fitness program or the other Airman which have met the regulatory AF requirements.  An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered.  We contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's record.  The burden of proof is on the applicant.  The applicant has not substantiated that the contested reports were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.

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

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration.  

The applicant met and was non-selected for promotion to the grade of captain by the CY12A (31 Mar 12) and CYl3A (31 Mar 13) Captain Promotion Processes.  The governing directive is AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, dated 16 Jul 04.

DPSID, Air Force Evaluation/Recognition Programs Branch, provided an advisory recommending denial to remove the PRF and OPRs as the applicant has not substantiated the contested reports were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time.  The applicant did submit a rebuttal letter to the CY13A Captain Promotion Process which was submitted and reviewed by the Head of the Management Level.  In addition, the applicant's fitness record reflects she has five remaining fitness assessment failures during the period of her reports. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Apr 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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.  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 OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant also alleges she has been the victim of reprisal and has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC § 1034).  However, based upon our own independent review, we determined the applicant has not established that the adverse actions she cites were the result of reprisal.  Although the applicant states she filed an IG complaint against her commander, she has not submitted direct evidence, such as an IG report to support her assertions.  Should the applicant provide copies of the IG report she references, we may be willing to reconsider her request.  Without such evidence, we do not find the applicant has been the victim of reprisal pursuant to Title 10 USC § 1034.  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-2015-02404 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

					   , Panel Chair
					, Member
					 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 27 Feb 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 23 Mar 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.