RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03007 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His nonselections for promotion to the grade of major while assigned to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) be removed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He does not believe his record was thoroughly reviewed to determine if he should be promoted. He was unaware that he was being considered for promotion while assigned to the IRR. His post-board counseling revealed that he was most likely not promoted simply because he was in the IRR. He believes his nonselections are unjust based on his active duty military record. His record reflects that he served as an officer and all of his performance reports recommend promotion. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a letter of support from an air refueling vice wing commander; copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 14 Sep 09 resignation; Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) for the periods 14 Mar 05 through 20 Jun 09. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was considered, but not selected, for promotion to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 2011 (CY11) Line of the Air Force-Judge Advocate Nonparticipating Reserve Major Promotion Selection Board and the CY12 Line and Nonline Nonparticipating Reserve Major Promotion Selection Board that convened at HQ ARPC, 11 Apr 11 and 23 Jan 12, respectively. When considered by these boards, he was assigned to the Nonobligated Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS). The promotion quota for the Nonparticipating Reserve Major Promotion Selection Boards is one (1). On 10 Feb 13, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code 14505 and 14513 for two nonselections for promotion to the grade of major. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/PB recommends denial, stating in part, that there were no errors in his record as it met the boards. The applicant was discharged in accordance with current laws and regulations. The applicant has provided no evidence that the board's recommendations were in any way unfair or unjust. Although members in NNRPS are not in a participating status, IAW Title l0 USC, Section 14301, all officers on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) must be considered for promotion when eligible. An Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and a promotion convening letter were sent to all eligible officers in this status approximately 90 days prior to the board convening date using the address in Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS). The applicant's nonselect letter and attachment listing the effects of non-selection would have also been sent to this address. There is no record to verify the address in MilPDS at that time. A review of the applicant's Officer Selection Record (OSR) and OSB did not reveal any errors in the record at the time it was reviewed by each board. No information was provided to either promotion board that would identify the applicant, or any other, meeting the board as in-the-promotion-zone or above-the- promotion-zone. Promotion is a competitive process. Board members use the "Whole Person Concept" in reviewing the entire OSR. The board considers job performance, as documented on OPRs, participation, professional qualities, job responsibility, leadership, specific achievements, decorations, and education. 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. The complete PB evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with PB's statement that his nonselections for promotion were not unfair or unjust and requests the Board amend his military record. While in the NNRPS, no information would have been provided to the promotion board. He had no commanding officer to write OPRs. He was not aware that he had a commanding officer until he was called up for an IRR Muster (Recall) at Offutt AFB, in Jul 12. He was also unaware of receiving communication from ARPC until he was notified of his second nonselection and his Muster recall. Nothing was ever sent to his home of record. He did not know if information was sent to his last duty station or where it was sent, if at all. If promotion boards are to use the Whole Person Concept, it failed to realize that since separating from active duty he has joined a law firm in which he will become a partner in January; that his current job responsibilities include multi-million dollar transactions and advising multimillion dollar businesses and business owners in all legal aspects; that he is a leader among his church where he serves as a vice chair of its Finance Committee; that he and his wife have started a family; that for a hobby he is an instructor at the local community college where he teaches business law and real estate law courses; and that he is a member of the local Kiwanis organization and the Lions Club organization. None of these facts were considered by the promotion board or by HQ ARPC/PB in making its recommendation. In support of his appeal, he provides a letter of support and recommendation from a former supervisor and electronic mail from his Member of Congress staff office. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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, including the statements provided in his behalf, 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. We note the applicant contends that he was not notified of his eligibility for promotion consideration to the grade of major and was not able to apprise the promotion board of his accomplishments. However, in accordance with AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force; Para 1.7 Eligible Officer, it is each officer’s responsibility to monitor his/her own eligibility for promotion and to ensure his/her records are correct prior to meeting a promotion board, not after. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence he was treated differently than other similarly situated officers 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 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 Docket Number BC-2013-03007 in Executive Session on 15 Apr 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/PB, dated 19 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Sep 13, w/atchs. 1 2