RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01076 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) as a lieutenant colonel be changed from 1 Oct 11 to 1 Jun 09. In the alternative, his record should be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2008 (CY08) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was improperly nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 2008 (CY08) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) due to the following errors and omissions: 1. His senior rater who rendered the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) only had limited knowledge of his duty performance, contrary to the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 8.1.4. 2. His senior rater failed to inform his support staff that he was no longer affiliated with his Senior Rater identification (SRID) code in the Promotion Recommendation-In-Board Support Management (PRISM). 3. His senior rater failed to provide him a copy of the PRF prior to the convening of the board in accordance with AFI 36- 2406 and AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation. 4. The military support staff failed to inform his senior rater that he was a loss to his management level; and also failed to inform his gaining senior rater that he was a gain to his management level prior to the PRF cutoff. 5. His gaining senior rater did not have an opportunity to consider him for a definitely promote (DP) recommendation or seek input from his previous senior rater contrary to the provisions of AFI 36-2406. 6. His PRF contained incorrect information pertaining to his current assignment, organization, mission, duty title, and key duties. 7. His Officer Selection Record (OSR) did not contain three of his Army Reserve officer performance reports (OPR), which were previously in his records. 8. He believes Colonel ’s participation as a voting member on the contested board unfairly prejudiced his opportunity to compete for promotion based their previous professional relationship. 9. The promotion board did not properly consider his performance in support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM in accordance with the Secretary of the Air Force’s memorandum of instruction (MOI). 10. AFMC/JA’s failure to process his Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) award in a timely manner created a prejudicial anomaly in his records before the board. 11. Incorrect advice from AFIT/SCI resulted in the omission of his advanced degree in law from his selection brief. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s military personnel records, the applicant, a prior service member of the US Army Reserve, commenced his service in the Regular Air Force on 22 Jul 98. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) by the CY08C lieutenant colonel CSB, which convened on 2 Dec 08. According to a copy of an email provided by the applicant, his senior rater provided him a copy of the contested PRF on 12 Dec 08, after the contested CSB convened. The applicant was again considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) by the CY09C lieutenant colonel CSB, which convened on 2 Nov 09. On 31 Jul 10, the applicant resigned from the Regular Air Force and accepted commission in the Air Force Reserve, effective 1 Aug 10. On 1 Oct 11, the applicant was promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, Reserve of the Air Force, effective and with a DOR of 1 Oct 11. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits B through D). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. While the applicant contends his PRF contained errors and omissions by his rating chain, there is no evidence the PRF in question was not completed in accordance with the governing instruction, AFI 36-2406. Evaluation reports are considered accurate as written unless strong evidence to the contrary is provided to substantiate correcting or removing the report. The applicant has not provided any evidence to show the PRF was erroneous or unjust. To grant the applicant relief would be an injustice to all other eligible officers which were in similar situations. The applicant’s senior rater would have been in the best position to provide clarification as to how familiar he was with the applicant’s duty performance, and how much personal knowledge he possessed when he completed the contested PRF. The applicant contends his senior rater failed to provide a copy of the PRF to him prior to the start of the CSB and provides a copy of an email from his senior rater appears to support this assertion; however, AFI 36-2406, as well as the instructions the service member references in his case, specifically indicates that eligible officers should contact the senior rater if they have not received their PRF within 15 days of the CSB, yet there is no evidence the applicant tried to obtain a copy of the PRF prior to the convening of the CSB. Therefore, some responsibility must rest with the applicant for apparently failing to seek and obtain a copy of the PRF prior to the subject CSB. While the applicant also contends that the military personnel staffs supporting both the losing and the gaining senior raters failed to inform them and position him appropriate consideration for a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation, AFI 36-2406 has a provision which gives the gaining senior rater the ability to utilize one of his allocated "Definitely Promote" recommendations to an eligible candidate who appears on his Management Eligibility List (MEL) between the PRF Accounting Date and the PRF Cutoff Date. However, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would undermine the presumption that such communications took place. The requirement is for the gaining senior rater to “consider” members such as the applicant for a DP, but the only documentation existent is the PRF, as it exists in the applicant’s “As Met” record. The applicant’s PRF was signed by the losing senior rater and indicates the gaining senior rater either considered and took no action or he did not have an option to consider the applicant in accordance with the AFI 36-2406. The applicant further claims his PRF contained incorrect information about his current assignment, organization, mission, duty title, and key duties. However, the PRF contained the duty information as of the PRF accounting date, which in the applicant’s case was 4 Jul 08. As such, the senior rater who rendered the PRF could not comment on the applicant’s future duties as they would not be under his purview. The new duty information would be contained on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) which is provided to the CSB for consideration along with the PRF and the OSR; therefore the PRF contained the correct information. The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/PB recommends denial. The applicant contends that some of his Army Reserve OPRs that were previously in his official Air Force records were omitted for consideration by the CY08C CSB. A review of the applicant’s “As Met” records for the board confirms the three reports in question were not present; however, 11 other Army OPRs covering the 1988 through 1998 were present for the board. There is no evidence to show the three OPRs in question were ever received or present prior to the CY08C CSB. These reports have been updated into the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) and copies have been sent to the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center for inclusion into his Officer Selection Record (OSR). The applicant also contends that his previous relationship with a voting member of the board unfairly prejudiced his opportunity to compete for promotion based on negative issues from their previous relationship. DoD Instruction 1320.14, Commissioned Officer Promotion Program Procedures, states board members are to base their recommendation on the material in each officer's official military record, any information the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may provide to that board in accordance with the aforementioned instruction, and any information about his or her own record communicated to the board by individual eligible officers under regulations of the Military Department concerned. As such, the voting member was prohibited by the Secretary of Defense from using any biased information in consideration of the applicant or introducing such information to the board. Thus, other board members would have no personal knowledge of the relationship between the applicant and the board member. The applicant has not provided any evidence the board member used this alleged bias against him during his promotion board. The applicant further contends the CSB did not properly consider his deployments in support of OEF/OIF as instructed by Secretary of the Air Force. The Memorandum of Instructions (MOI) attached to the applicant's brief instructs the board members to recommend the best-qualified officers for promotion applying the whole person concept. Deployment data is provided in assessing individual officers. Thus the data the applicant provided pertaining to other officers has no bearing on this case as the board members were not instructed to give favorable consideration to selecting or to positively take note of members with deployments. The complete AFPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit D. The applicant contends the CY08C CSB did not properly consider his strong performance record on deployments for OEF/OIF. However, the applicant’s OSB that met the selection board described the two deployments he completed. In addition, his Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) and his Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) First Oak Leaf Cluster (1 OLC), which the applicant received for said deployments, were on file in his selection record. Additionally, the applicant provided a letter to the board with copies of his deployed Letters of Evaluation (LOEs). The applicant contends AFMC/JA's failure to process his MSM in a timely manner unfairly created a prejudicial anomaly in his record before the CY08C CSB. A review of the applicant’s as met record reflects his MSM (1OLC) was filed in the selection record on 26 Nov 08 and was on file for consideration by the CY08C CSB. The applicant believes the late filing of his medal left him with no alternative but to submit a letter to the board, which he believes could be misinterpreted negatively by the selection board. The applicant addressed the uncertainty of the inclusion of his MSM, deployment LOEs, Law degree and Army Achievement Medal in his letter to the board. However, the decision to write a letter to the board is solely that of the eligible officer. The applicant also contends that due to incorrect advice from AFIT his law degree was erroneously omitted from his selection brief. However, although the applicant completed the AFIT program, he had not been awarded his degree at the time the board convened and his Training Report (TR) for the AFIT program was included in his OSR for the board to review. Additionally, the applicant exercised his right to write a letter to the board which indicated that he had received his advanced degree in law. Although an officer may be qualified for promotion, he or she may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies. Furthermore, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have competitive records and also did not get promoted. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his contentions and asserts that the documentation he provided with his application substantiates he was not properly considered for promotion by the CY08C CSB. The applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice. While the applicant contends that a variety of factors precluded him from receiving full and fair consideration for promotion, after thoroughly reviewing of the applicant’s complete submission, his rebuttal response, and the evidence of record, we are not convinced by the evidence presented that the applicant was deprived of full and fair consideration for promotion. While the applicant contends that his senior rater, who prepared the contested performance recommendation form (PRF), had only limited knowledge of his duty performance, we are not convinced that said PRF is inaccurate or that it was not rendered in good faith. In point of fact, it appears as though there was a concerted effort on behalf of the applicant’s gaining and losing senior raters to ensure that his accomplishments and potential for promotion were thoroughly and accurately described in the contested PRF. In this respect, we note the applicant provided a supporting statement from the senior rater indicating that, contrary to the applicant’s own assertions, extensive communication between the staffs of the gaining and losing senior raters took place while the contested PRF was being crafted. The applicant also contends that he was not appropriately considered for a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation due to the purported lack of coordination between the staffs of his gaining and losing senior rater; however, other than argument and conjecture, he has presented no evidence that would lead us to believe that he was not appropriately considered for such a recommendation. In this respect, we note the comments of AFPC/DPSIDEP indicating that according to AFI 36-2406 a gaining senior rater may utilize one of his allocated DP recommendations to an eligible candidate who appears on his Management Eligibility List (MEL) between the PRF Accounting Date and the PRF Cutoff Date; however, the applicant has not provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that he was not duly considered for a DP by his gaining senior rater, or that the ultimate decision to provide him with a “Promote” (P) recommendation was arbitrary or capricious. The applicant’s arguments in this regard are duly noted; however, the fact that he did not receive a DP recommendation from the gaining senior rater does not constitute evidence that he was not appropriately considered for such a recommendation. The applicant further claims that his PRF contained incorrect information regarding his current assignment, organization, mission, duty title, and key duties; however, the PRF in question appropriately described the duty information as of the PRF accounting date, which was 4 Jul 08. As such, it would not be appropriate for the senior rater, who authored the PRF, to comment on the applicant’s future assignment. Additionally, the new duty information would be reflected on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) which is provided to the CSB for consideration along with the PRF and the officer selection record (OSR); therefore, in our view, the PRF contained the correct information. Ultimately, the applicant’s contentions related to the recommendation and content reflected on the contested PRF are only supported by argument and conjecture, and argument and conjecture do not constitute evidence of an error or injustice. As for the applicant’s contention that his OSR did not contain three of his Army Reserve officer performance reports, which he indicates were previously in his records, there is no evidence to show the three Army OPRs were ever received or present prior to the CY08C CSB. Nevertheless, even if we assume for the sake of argument that said reports were previously part of his records, the applicant has not presented any evidence to indicate that he was somehow precluded from making these reports a matter of record prior to the events under review, or that he did not have an opportunity to make the promotion board aware of their existence when he elected to write a letter to the board to bring other matters to their attention. In this respect, we note the applicant has provided copies of email traffic relative to his efforts to ensure that his pending meritorious service medal (MSM) was included in his OSR that makes it clear that he was aware of his responsibility to verify the contents of his OSR and take appropriate action to ensure his records were correct. While the applicant also argues that incorrect advice from AFIT resulted in the omission of his advanced degree in law from his OSR, we are not convinced that he is the victim of an error or injustice in this regard either. In this respect, we note the comments of AFPC/DPSOO indicating that while the applicant had yet to be awarded his AFIT degree as of the Board convening date, his training report (TR) for the AFIT program was included in his OSR and, in exercising his right to write a letter to the board, the applicant made the Board aware that he had received his advanced degree in law. Therefore, we are not convinced the applicant’s OSR did not appropriately reflect his accomplishments in this regard. While the applicant makes a variety of allegations with respect to the content of his record, we do not find his arguments or the documentation presented sufficient to conclude that his record contained any errors that were attributable Air Force officials, or that with due diligence on his part, were not discoverable during his apparently exhaustive review of his record in the months leading up to the convening of _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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-2012-01076 in Executive Session on 13 Dec 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 May 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/PB, dated 15 Jun 12. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 21 Aug 12. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 12. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated. Panel Chair