RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03469 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The initial overall recommendation of “Definitely Promote” on her Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 2011A (CY11A) (P0511A) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central Selection Board (CSB) stand as the final recommendation, in contradiction to the established “Promote” recommendation that reflects on her PRF filed in her permanent evaluation record. 2. Her accomplishments that would have made her competitive amongst her peers be included in her PRF for the CY12A Lt Col CSB. 3. She be promoted to the grade of Lt Col. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her PRF which met the CY11A Lt Col CSB was not the same PRF that she had received from her Senior Rater. Had she been given the correct version of the PRF prior to the CSB, she would have had an opportunity to gather additional information prior to the convening of the CSB. In addition, her PRF that met the CY12A Lt Col CSB failed to contain all of the accomplishments that would have made the PRF competitive amongst her peers. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the rank of major (O-4) with a date of rank of 1 November 2004. The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance ratings: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 4 Dec 01 (Capt) MS 4 Dec 02 MS 4 Dec 03 MS 25 Jul 04 MS 25 Jul 05 (Major) MS 8 May 06 MS 8 May 07 MS 8 May 08 MS 8 May 09 MS 8 May 10 MS 17 Nov 10 MS 6 Aug 11 MS The applicant has five non-selections for promotion to the grade of Lt Col by the CY08B, CY09B, CY10A, CY11A, and CY12A Lt Col CSBs. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service record, are contained in the evaluations provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to change the final recommendation on her P0511A PRF to a “Definitely Promote,” as well as to take no action to correct any element of her P0512A PRF. The applicant has not provided any substantiating documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the two contested PRFs were rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely provided only her view of events as she believes them to be true. A careful review of the existing P0511A PRF shows that the final promotion recommendation was hand-marked, which indicates that the record was competed for a “Definitely Promote” at the P0511A Management-Level Review (MLR) and was not selected for a final “Definitely Promote” recommendation. During this timeframe, the applicant contends she departed for an overseas deployment, and that this factor may well have complicated any effort by the Senior Rater in delivering the final competed “Promote” rated PRF which met the P0511A MLR. However, the applicant does not provide any communication from her Senior Rater or any other proof to demonstrate that either the PRF was ever mailed to her at her deployed location or was otherwise misplaced or lost. In the absence of this evidence, they can only presume that her PRF was properly conveyed to the applicant by the Senior Rater. In addition, the “Definitely Promote” marked PRF which the applicant provided is not a valid PRF for active duty personnel, due to the fact that it is digitally signed. The Air Force only allows active duty PRFs that are wet-signed; therefore, this digitally signed PRF would never have been accepted for consideration at any subject Major Command MLR or CSB, nor be accepted for filing in the applicant’s permanent evaluation record. There does remain a possibility that the Senior Rater or support staff may have inadvertently processed this initial PRF, marking the PRF as “Definitely Promote” due to an incorrect belief that the applicant was a traditional Air Force Reservist, and that by some administrative error the applicant mistakenly received a copy of this erroneous PRF. In any event, it remains clear from the evidence provided that this error was corrected prior to the subject MLR, a new PRF was re-signed, and the applicant’s corrected PRF did meet an active duty P0511A MLR, at which she was not given a “Definitely Promote” recommendation. Concerning the applicant’s second allegation that her P0512A PRF did not contain all of her accomplishments in order for her to be competitive at the subject CSB, it is solely the Senior Rater’s discretion to determine what accomplishments to include summarizing an officer’s career, with merely nine lines available on the form to do so. The applicant fails to recognize that the PRF is not the only record which documents performance within the Officer Selection Record (OSR) at the time of CSB promotion consideration. In addition to the PRF, the OSR also includes a complete Officer Record of Performance, to include all Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and any earned decoration over an officer’s career. The accomplishments the applicant references in her appeal were very likely reported in various OPRs and earned decorations spanning her entire career. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from any rating official on the contested PRFs. It is determined that these PRFs were accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. To alter the recommendations would illegitimize the integrity of the existing PRFs as completed by the Senior Raters who were assigned that specific responsibility. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denying the applicant’s request for direct promotion to the grade of Lt Col; however, they support Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration in order for the applicant to write a letter to the CY2011A Lt Col CSB highlighting the accomplishments not mentioned in her PRF. The applicant has not provided evidence to support her request for direct promotion to the grade of Lt Col. The results of the original CY11A Lt Col CSB were based on a complete review of the applicant’s entire selection record, assessing the whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and professional development. Although she may be qualified for promotion, she may not be the best qualified of the other eligible officers competing for the limited number of promotion vacancies in the judgment of a selection board vested with the discretionary authority to make such selections. To grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records, but did not get promoted. Additionally, both Congress and Department of Defense have made it clear their intent that errors ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved through the use of SSBs. When many good officers are competing for a limited number of promotions, it is extremely competitive. Without access to all the competing records and a review of their content, they believe sending approved cases to SSBs for remedy is the fairest and best practice. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 November 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no 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 Air Force offices of primary responsibility that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to warrant favorable consideration of her requests. While the applicant contends the PRF which met the CY11A CSB was not the same PRF that she had previously received, she provides no evidence that establishes the contested PRF was not rendered in accordance with established policy. Additionally, finding no evidence that she has been treated differently than similarly situated officers, we do not believe she has been the victim of an injustice. While AFPC/DPSOO indicates they would support the applicant’s record being considered by an SSB in order for her to be able to write a letter to the CY12A CSB highlighting her accomplishments not mentioned in the contested PRF, we note she had this opportunity available to her prior to the board convening. In view of this and since there exists no error in her record, we do not agree that she should be afforded an SSB. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the requested relief. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-0469 in Executive Session on 25 April 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03469 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPSID, dated 17 Jul 12. Exhibit D. Letter, ARPC/DPSOO, dated 31 Oct 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 12.