RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-04013

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief for his Lieutenant Colonel In-Promotion-Zone Board (P0516A) be updated to reflect completion of Marine Corps Command and Staff seminar and his amended records meet a Special Selection Board (SSB).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Not including his completion of the Marine Corps Command and Staff (MCCS) seminar was an error and it materially prejudiced him in that the promotion board members were not fully apprised of his military records in accordance with Air Force written promotion board rules.

The Preselection Brief Form (PBF) directs Air Force members meeting the upcoming promotion board to check their official records to ensure they are complete.  He submitted evidence of his completion of MCCS to Air University and it was reflected in his military records at the time of the promotion board.

Further, the PBF describes Developmental Education as “any approved Professional Military Education (PME) program cited in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2301, Developmental Education.”  MCCS is identified as approved PME in the AFI.  The Air Force, by failing to include his completion of MCCS on his OSB, did not comply with its internal rules, which is an error.

The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) to the promotion board members identifies characteristics to consider: “…understanding of the Air Force’s role in joint matters…” and “whole person concept” including “advanced academic and developmental education.”  His completion of MCCS is highly relevant to the issue of joint military education and the Air Force’s failure to provide all relevant information about a member’s advanced academic credentials, particularly developmental military education, is contrary to the SecAF’s MOI. 

Finally, only one member of the promotion board knew of his initiative to complete MCCS.  All other board members were deprived of that information and could not consider it favorably when scoring his promotion package.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Nov 04, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

On 22 Feb 16, the applicant was non-selected for promotion by the Calendar Year 2016A (CY16A) (P0516A) In-the-Promotion-Zone (IPZ) Central Selection Board.

On 7 Feb 17, the applicant was non-selected for promotion by the Calendar Year 2016C (CY16C) Lieutenant Colonel Line of the Air Force Judge Advocate (LAF-J) board.

The applicant is currently serving on active duty with the Regular Air Force.

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:

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

The applicant was a non-select to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel by the CY16A (22 Feb 16) (P0516A) In-the-Promotion-Zone (IPZ) Central Selection Board (CSB).  The governing directive is AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, dated 16 Jul 04.

The results of the CSB the applicant met were based on a complete review of his entire selection record, assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and education.  The information on the applicant’s OSB showed he had completed Intermediate Developmental Education in accordance with “Instructions for Reviewing the Officer Preselection Brief”, attachment 4, para 5.  On 1 Aug 14, the SecAF approved a Total Force Refocus on Officer Education Expectations, Advanced Academic Degree Timing and Developmental Education (DE) Redundancy to remove method, timing, and duplication of DE completion from promotion documents.  To eliminate redundancy, the DE section of the OSB was changed to reflect only one DE listing (Primary DE, Intermediate DE, Senior DE), even if a member completed multiple schools within the same DE level.

Our evaluation of the applicant’s request concerning the correction of his DE on the OSB showed the information on the applicant’s OSB was correct and no change is required.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisory opinion stated the basis for the recommended denial for his request to correct his promotion board records (with corresponding SSB), was a change in Air Force (AF) policy.  An objection to the change in AF policy was not the basis of his original request for correction.

His request for correction is based upon the fact that the AF did not comply with stated written guidance requirements for the Preselection Brief, which was used to create his OSB.

He reiterated his position regarding the instructions on the Preselection Brief Form addressing DE and how failure to annotate his MCCS completion prejudiced him before the board.

A complete copy of the Applicant’s Rebuttal 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.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 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-2016-04013 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04013 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 29 Dec 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jan 17, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant Rebuttal, dated 30 Jan 17.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04013, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.