RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05077 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS: 1. Her referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 16 May 2002 through 15 May 2003 be expunged from her record. 2. She be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by all the impacted promotion boards. 3. She receive back pay and allowances for the period from her date of rank to the present and time-in-grade for pay, promotion and retirement purposes, if selected for promotion or continuation by the SSB. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In a combined eight page brief, the applicant, through counsel makes the following contentions: 1. She was twice non-selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col), (0-5), by Lt Col promotion selection boards for Calendar Year (CY) CY11A and CY12A. According to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Memorandum of Instruction for the CY12A Lt Col Selection and Continuation Board, the selection rate for Lt Cols was 85 percent in the primary zone. Selective continuation was encouraged for non- selected Majors who either qualified for retirement within 5 years of 30 Nov 2012, or whose Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) were on the 2012 critical skills list. Her AFSC was not listed on the 2012 critical skills list but having served in excess of 17 years, she met the criteria of qualifying for retirement within 5 years of 30 Nov 2012. However, selective continuation was discouraged for Majors with negative indicators in their records. Taken in its totality her records reflect only one discriminator, the referral OPR. Prior to the CY11A Board she submitted a statement to the board to explain the referral OPR. Nevertheless, as a result of the CY12A non-selection she was involuntarily separated from the Air Force on 30 Nov 2012. 2. Involuntarily separating her based solely on a referral report grounded in bias was a grave injustice. Having served over 17 years, she met the criteria in the SECAF memo. Furthermore, she overcame the referral OPR by; first being continued to 20 years as a Captain, then against the odds she was promoted to Major. Since that promotion, she performed exemplary. When the Air Force promoted her to the grade of Major it was because she fully demonstrated the full trust and confidence to perform the duties of this higher grade. It stands to reason if she were never promoted to Major she would have been permitted to retire in the grade of Captain. There is no doubt this referral OPR should be expunged from her record and subsequently reconsideration for promotion/continuation through a special selection board should be granted. Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) should also be a consideration. In support of her appeal, the applicant submits her counsel’s brief, supporting documents and correspondences and documents extracted from her military personnel record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Nov 12 with a narrative reason for separation as Non-selection Permanent Promotion. She was credited with 17 years, 5 months and 21 days of active duty service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _______________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show the report is unjust or inaccurate as written. 2. The applicant received a referral report with derogatory comments which imply that she was not meeting minimum acceptable standards. The applicant, from the evidence provided, was given the opportunity to rebut the referral report, and indeed rebutted appropriately. No evidence has been provided in this case that the referral marking or comment on the report is invalid or otherwise unfounded. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the referral OPR as served, and insufficient evidence to support the allegations made by the applicant, they find that the referral comment mentioned in the applicant's contested report was appropriate, and as such there is no basis in which to support removal of the contested evaluation. 3. 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 failed to provide any information/support from either the rater or additional rater on the contested evaluation. In the absence of input or explanation from the evaluators, they presume that the report is in fact valid as written. It is determined that the report was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable policies and regulations. They contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's record. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 1. AFPC/DPSOO states that based on AFPC/DPSID's recommendation to deny relief, they recommend denial for SSB consideration for promotion and continuation. 2. The applicant met and was twice non-selected for promotion to Major by the CY04A Major board which convened on 1 Nov 04. She met the CY04 Captain Selective Continuation Board and was offered continuation to retirement eligibility as an officer. At the time of this board, the applicant was in a critical skill AFSC and the guidance provided to the board was to use the fully qualified method of selection. The applicant was selected for promotion to Major by the CY05B Major Central Selection Board which convened on 5 Dec 05. Her selection to Major terminated her continuation period and her date of separation (DOS) returned to indefinite. 3. The applicant met, and for the second time, was non-selected for promotion to Lt Col by the CY12A Lt Col board which convened on 5 Mar 12. All twice deferred officers who were not retirement eligible or within two years of retirement eligibility were eligible for continuation. The SECAF instructions to the board stated “as we are in a period of force reductions, you normally should not continue an officer with negative quality indicators documented in the record unless it was clearly in the best interests of the Air Force to do so.” The applicant was not in a critical skill approved by the SECAF for this board and did have a negative quality indicator in the selection record. Although board members did have the option to continue the applicant, they chose not to do so. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response the applicant states she respectfully disagrees with the Air Force advisory opinions and requests the Board review her case carefully prior to making a final decision. She has submitted sufficient evidence within her appeal package and it is clearly an injustice to allow this decision to stand. She has more than demonstrated the ability to serve as a field grade officer in the Air Force and although unfounded, the issue described in the contested report from a decade ago was a mere blip in her overall career spanning over 17 years. Furthermore, to have this report be the sole basis of discontinuing her career is unjust. It is especially unjust due to the fact that she unmistakably overcame and flourished in her career since the report was written. Being continued to 20 years as a Captain and subsequently promoted to Major above the zone is proof. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded the applicant’s referral OPR should be expunged and her record be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel. The Board took note of the applicant’s contention that involuntarily separating her based solely on a referral report grounded in bias was a grave injustice and having served over 17 years, she met the criteria in the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Memorandum of Instruction for the CY12A Lt Col Selection and Continuation Board, for non-selected Majors who qualified for retirement within 5 years of 30 Nov 2012. However, we do not find this contention sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force. We find no evidence showing that the applicant’s separation is contrary to governing policies. While we are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, in the absence of evidence indicating she was treated differently than others who are similarly situated, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice. With regard to the applicant’s request to be considered under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), there is no provision of federal law to support this request. Under TERA, eligibility criteria for early retirement differs contingent upon each fiscal year’s manning and mission needs to meet congressionally-mandated end strength requirements. The timeline for consideration for early retirement under this particular program has passed. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider the applicant's requests. 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 22 August 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05077: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Dec 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 16 Jan 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 March 2013. Chair AFBCMR 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700 Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762 Dear: Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05077. After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice. Accordingly, the Board denied your application. You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the Board. In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not possible. BY DIRECTION OF THE CHAIR Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Attachment: Record of Board Proceedings DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary