RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02484 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record, to include the fact that he completed Professional Military Education (PME), be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 2012 USAFR Line and Nonline Participating Reserve Major Promotion Selection Board. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In Jan 2012, his package was submitted to the board; however, the final PME test was not completed due to a hardship involving his civilian employer. In Jan 2012, he submitted a letter to the board; however, it was received after the deadline. The lack of PME is the sole reason for his nonselection to major (Maj, O-4). In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Squadron Officer School (SOS) completion record and test score reporting sheets. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to ARPC/CV, the applicant was considered, but not selected by the CY 20ll and the CY 2012 USAFR Line and Nonline Participating Reserve Major Promotion Selection Boards which convened on 31 Jan 2011 and 23 Jan 2012, respectively. His mandatory separation date was 1 Oct 2012. According to Reserve Order CB-95, dated 18 Sep 2012, the applicant was honorably discharged from all appointments in the U.S. Air Force effective 1 Oct 2012. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/CV recommends denial. CV states that completion of PME is never the sole determining factor for promotion. The objective of the Reserve promotion process is to promote fully qualified officers to serve in the next higher grade based on past performance and future potential. Performance, participation, professional qualities, job responsibility, leadership, specific achievements and education, are factors taken into consideration during the board review. The board members, using the "whole person concept," base their determination of the member's potential to serve in the higher grade on the factors reflected in the officer selection folder and on the officer selection brief. Promotion is a competitive process and the final recommendation is determined through a fair and equitable process by the board members. A promotion board is the sole recommending authority, and no feedback is provided by the board to explain why a member is not recommended for selection to the next higher grade. On 23 Jan 2012, the applicant submitted a letter to the CY 2012 board to advise that he had successfully completed two of the three tests for PME and was scheduled to complete the final test on 30 Jan 2012. However, the convening notice for this board (ARPCM 11-32, dated 2 Sep 2011) established the suspense date for all letters as midnight, Mountain Standard Time (MST), 22 Jan 2012, (10 USC, section 14106). His letter was submitted after the deadline, and could not be accepted for placement in the Officer Selection Record (OSR) for the board's review. His PME was not completed until Jun 2012, well after the 27 Jan 2012 board adjournment date. The complete CV evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Aug 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 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(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 5 Feb 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2012-02484: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/CV, dated 16 Jul 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 2012.