RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03788

	COUNSEL:  NONE

HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His nonselection for promotion to the grade of major (0-4) by the CY14 (V0141A) and CY15 (V0415A) Air Force Participating Reserve (PR) Major Line Promotion Selection Boards be removed from his records.

2. He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of major.

APPLICANT  CONTENDS  THAT:

In October	2012,	while	serving	on	active	duty,	with	the	436th Security Forces Squadron		(436 SFS), Dover AFB, DE he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for	failing	to	address	a	union	complaint.		Subsequently,	he received a command directed referral Officer Performance	Report (OPR) with a closeout date of 16 October 2012.	He was told his referral OPR would be forwarded to him for signature as he was approved to separate on 8 April 2013.

He was able to secure a commission in the Air Force Reserve with a position in the 452 SFS, March ARB, CA. In June 2013, he began drilling with the 452 SFS. At the time of his in-processing, his referral OPR had not been sent to him for signature and his next
OPR from his Reserve unit was coming due in October 2013.  As a
result, his commander contacted the 436th Force Support Squadron (436 FSS) and his previous unit. The 436 FSS acknowledged the OPR was lost and asked that he send them signed OPRs because his first board for promotion to the grade of major would · be meeting in January 2014. He signed the OPRs as requested without seeing his group commander's comments. Every month after June 2013, his Reserve commander attempted to get Dover AFB to close out his OPR but was unsuccessful. His commander also requested his UIF be sent to his new FSS in order to request early removal of the UIF. The 436 FSS advised that the UIF had been shredded and there was no UIF to forward.

On 9 January 2014, 15 months after the closeout date and two days prior to the convening of the V0141A board on 13 January 2014, his

unit cormnander was informed that his OPR would be forwarded .to ARPC. His Reserve unit then routed his 2013 OPR for signature and they were advised that it would meet the promotion board. However, on 13 January. 2013, his cormnander received an e-mail from ARPC stating they were not able to process the 2013 OPR due to not receiving his 2012 OPR from Dover AFB. As a result, the V014A board only saw his referral OPR and not the 2013 OPR from March ARB. His referral 2012 OPR was finalized 15 months after close out and it did not have concur or non-concur blocks checked by eit.her the group or wing cormnander. In·April 2014, he was informed he was nonselected for promotion to the grade of major by the V014A board.

On 7 April 2015, . he was notified by his cormnander he was again nonselected for promotion to the grade of major by the V0415A board. He was miscounseled by the board counselor and as a r'esult did not request removal of the LOR from his Officer Selection Record (OSR). If he had been given accurate guidance, he would have requested through his unit and wing cormnander that the LOR be removed from his OSR.

Since receiving correct guidance, he has requested removal of the LOR from his OSR. He asks the AFBCMR remove his nonselections for promotion to the grade of major and grant him an SSB to provide him a fair look at his records for promotion consideration to the grade of major.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 28 July 2004.

On 3 October 2012, the applicant received an LOR for failure to implement the agreed upon correction to resolve a complaint pertaining to union employees. The LOR stated it was not an isolated case and was one example of the applicant' s continued failure to provide accurate information, see tasks to full completion and provide timely follow-up.

On 19 October 2012, the applicant 's wing cormnander placed his LOR in his OSR.

In accordance with AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System, dated 30 August 2006, paragraph 9.3.8, LORs filed in the OSR will remain until the officer is afforded one In-the-Promotion-Zone (IPZ) or Above-the-Promotion-Zone (APZ) consideration unless process requested under the early removal as an exception to policy (see paragraph 9.3.15.). The officer may appeal to his or her senior rater for removal after one IPZ or APZ consideration. Members cannot request early removal; only the wing cormnander or

2

issuing authority, whichever is higher, may request early removal as an exception to policy (paragraph 9.3.15.). Paragraph 9.3.15 states wing commander or issuing authority, whichever is higher, may direct early removal of the LOR from the OSR. Early removal constitutes removal of the LOR from the OSR prior to an IPZ or APZ consideration. This should be considered in rare instances, as an exception to policy.

On 8 April 2013, the applicant was discharged and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. He was credited with 8 years, 8 months, and 11 days of active service.

On 9 April 2013, he was assigned to the 452 SFS, March ARB.

On 9 January 2014, the applicant acknowledged receipt of a command directed referral OPR for the rporting period 24 March 2012 to
16 October 2012. The reason for the referral OPR was the failure to address union concern as directed for which he received an LOR and UIF. The applicant was also removed as the oprations officer for failed leadership.       ·

On 10 January 2014, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his OPR for the reporting period 17 October 2012 to 16 October 2013.

On 8 April 2015, the applicant was notified that due to his second deferral for prqmotion to the grade of major he must be discharged in accordance with 10 U.S.C. §  14505.

On 2 June 2015, the applicant 's Reserve wing commander signed a memorandum indicating that the LOR dted 3 October 2012 should be removed from his OSR.

The applicant provides a signed letter from his commander, dated
2 June 2015 requesting the AFBCMR grant the applicant a SSB corroborating the applicant 's contentions that he was not properly counseled on requesting removal of his LOR from his records prior to the CY15 promotion board .

. On 1 October 2015, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.

AIR  FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/PB recommends denial of the applicant' s requests. He was properly considered by the CY14 and CY15 USAFR PR Major Line Promotion Selection Boards. His records were accurate when pres nted to the board. To grant relif would be contrary to the criteria established by 10 U.S.C. § 14301.

3

,----	- --------- -------

The applicant 's LOR was removed from his OSR by his commander on
2 June 2015 and this action did not . impact the 2012 referral OPR which is still in his records. ARPC/PB does not know the exact reasons the applicant was not promoted by either of the boards, promotion is a competitive process and no feedback is provided by the board to explain why a member is not recommended for selection to the next higher grade. However, the applicant' s referral OPR and LOR were considered as adverse information and records without these negative factors will statistically fare better when it comes to the competitive process of promotion boards.

ARPC/PB also states that while they cannot confirm nor deny the applicant 's ?tatements regarding the information the counselor relayed on the disposition of his LOR during his 2014 nonselection counseling session, the convening notice for the CY15 board, published on 7 August 2014, contained an "Officer Information Sheet" with instructions on how an LOR could be removed from an OSR. In this regard, Military Personnel Sections were instructed to forward this sheet, along with the Officer Pre-selection Brief, to all officers meeting the board. This information was also available on the myPERS website, which all officers have access to and. are encouraged to use.

A complete copy of the ARPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The. advisory suggests that he received an "Officer Information Sheet" with instruction on how a LOR could be removed from an OSR; however, he only received an envelope that contained his OPB and a letter stating he would meet the CY15 USAF PR Major Line Promotion Selection oard. Within that letter, it stated to review the OPB for accuracy and to ensure his records were up to date. Nowhere in the envelope was an "Officer Information Sheet" with guidance about what to do when an LOR is contained in his records or any instructions about how to remove an LOR from his OSR after orie non selection. While he was unaware that information on removing his LOR from his OSR was also included on myPers, he took several actions to ensure that his records were updat d correctly. The first action he took after his first non-selection was meeting with an ARPC representative for a "Post Board Counseling." At no time during this counseling was he informed that he could request that his. senior rater remove his LOR from his OSR. Instead, he was told that his UIF and LOR would drop off his records by October 2014 and only his referral OPR would be considered by the Board. Furthermore, he and his commander met with the senior enlisted manager to review his records prior to the CY15 board, and again he was never asked if he had requested removal of his LOR from his OSR. As such, he and his commander were both under the impression that with the expiration of the UIF, the LOR would no longer be a part of the records that the Board would review.  It was not until

4

his second non-selection that he was given the proper guidance and with this new information he immediately took the necessary actions to remove his LOR from his records, which was removed by his senior rater on 2 June 2015.

He requests that the Bord consider the totality of his entire career and the circumstances surrounding the improper guidance that was given by personnel professionals . . All he isks is for the Board to remove a non-selection and grant him a SSB to review his records as they should have been presented to the CY15 Promotion Selection Board.

A copy of the applicant 's complete response is at exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.. The applicant hs 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, to include his rebuttal response; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the .A.ir force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.   In this respect, we do not
·find the applicant' s contention he was miscounseled on the process to request removal of his LOR from his OSR sufficient to remove his nonselections for promotion by the CY14 and CY15 USAFR PR Major Line Promotion Selection Boards and grant SSB consideration. While we do not question that the applicant may have · been provided incorrect information and did not receive the "Officer Information Sheet," we also note that this information was readily available on the MyPERS ebsite and included in AFI 36-2608.  Furthermore, we are persuaded the applicant has provided no evidence to substantiate that the LOR was issued unjustly or that his records were incorrect at the time the promotion boards convened. Furthermore, we note the applicant' s referral OPR documenting his removal. from his position for failed leadership remains in his record and was also reviewed by the board. In view of this and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend .granting the requested relief.

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.

5

-------- ---- --- --- -

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-2015-03788 in Executive Session on 26 January 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair Mr.
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E.

DD Form 149, dated 31 August 2015, w/atchs. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Memorandum, ARPC/PB, dated 8 January 2016.
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 March 2016.
Letter, Applicant, dated 30 March 2016.

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.