RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02057 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of major by the CY10D Major Central Selection Board (CSB) and be allowed to submit a letter to the board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His leadership noted that because his record reflects he went from Flight Commander to E-3 Navigator, it could potentially hurt his promotion chances. His record looks like he was “fired” or demoted in responsibility, when he was not. If he were allowed to write a letter to the board, it would give him an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding his situation. Additionally, he would like to explain his brief attendance to Squadron Officer School (SOS) in-residence due to being administratively recalled and then relocated. The Ops tempo and long-term immediate family medical issues complicated his ability to attend SOS. He believes these two main areas cost him promotion at the CY10D Major CSB. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of AF IMT 973, Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders. His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain (0-3). He has one non-selection to the grade of major by the CY10D CSB. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. DPSOO states the applicant has one non-selection to the grade of major. The results of the original P0410D board were based on a complete review of his record, assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and education. DPSOO acknowledges that although he was qualified for promotion, in the board’s judgment he was not the best qualified of other eligible officers competing for the limited number of promotion vacancies. DPSOO finds no evidence to show the applicant’s non-selection for promotion to major was a result of a material error or injustice. Additionally, he had the opportunity to write a letter prior to the board convening, but he chose not to do so until after his non-selection for promotion. The DPSOO complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responds by reiterating his original contentions; however, he points out that he was on his sixth deployment when the Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) were handed out. He received his PRF via e-mail communications, but did not receive an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) or instructions on how to write a letter to the board if he had chosen to do so. His data verification brief (DVB) was in order and his leadership told him he stood a good chance at promotion despite his lack of having a few ‘checked boxes’. He believed his joint credit would bridge that gap. He was instructed to review his OPB; however, the instructions on how to access the OPB was met with dead ends and bad information from his home station to AFPC. In light of his non-selection and some points made by senior leadership, he now believes a letter would have been extremely helpful in explaining the apparent regression in his duty history and extenuating circumstances behind the lack of in-residence SOS. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We have reviewed the available evidence pertaining to the applicant’s assertions regarding the opportunity to write a letter to the board and we are not persuaded that corrective action is warranted. His contentions in this regard are duly noted; however, we find no evidence of an error in this case and we are not persuaded by his assertions that he has been the victim of an injustice. While we note the applicant’s many deployments, it does not appear he has been treated any differently than other officers similarly situated. Consequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 relief sought in this application. 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 issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2011-02057 in Executive Session on 29 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011- 02057 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 May 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 10 Jun 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jul 11.