RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05883 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS: His record be corrected to remove: His Air Force Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered for the calendar year (CY) 2013 Captain, Central Selection Board (CSB), P0313C. The 21 May 2013, memorandum from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Executive Officer (AFLCMC/HI). His corrected record be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by all the impacted promotion boards and, if approved, he be promoted to the grade of Captain, O-3, with an effective Date of Rank of 1 January 2014. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 21 May 2013, he was notified in writing, via the PRF, of the overall recommendation of “Do Not Promote This Board” from his senior rater. The sole derogatory statement on the PRF was the last bullet listed in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, “displayed a reluctance to accept personal responsibility.” The other four bullets were positive in nature and included comments of “cyber warrior, phenomenal leader and technical genius.” He received no written substantiation for this derogatory statement, only a verbal statement from his senior rater that he did not believe he (the applicant) had taken responsibility for his 24 May 2012, physical fitness assessment. As background, some time in May 2012 (exact date unknown), his previous senior rater, submitted an AF Form 709 with an overall recommendation of “promote” for the P0312C Line of the Air Force (LAF) Captain Board. All five bullets were positive in nature and included comments of “rising leader, brilliant intellect, and consummately prepared/hard-charging leader.” He completed his semi-annual fitness assessment with a final composite score of 34.50 points equating to a fitness level of “Unsatisfactory” on 24 May 2012. He received passing marks for the abdominal circumference (20.00 points out of a maximum of 20.00 points); push ups (5.00 out of 10.00); sit-ups (9.50 out of 10.00); but, unfortunately, scored an incomplete out of a 60.00 points for his cardio results due to an incomplete 1 1/2 mile run. Although he was never officially referred for individual education and/or intervention, he attended daily fitness workouts. On 20 August 2012, he completed a new PT test with a composite score of 76.80 points equating to an overall Fitness Level of “Satisfactory.” In early October 2012, he was notified verbally by his commander, that he was not selected for promotion by the P0312C LAF Captain Board. No specific reason or feedback was provided. Leading up to and since the initiation of the Non-Recommendation process on 21 May 2013, his duty performance has been exceptional as noted in his 2012 and 2013 (draft) officer Performance reports (OPRs) as well as substantiated by the awards he has received individually and as a team member. He has had no career derogatory documentation. The only issues he has encountered during his career has been two fitness assessment failures and, following both failure incidents, he responded by taking corrective actions and by passing subsequent fitness assessments. Why his current senior rater is still holding him accountable for an issue that occurred and was resolved at his previous assignment in a past reporting period remains a mystery to him. When he was notified on 3 May 2013, that AFPC had eliminated the Central Selection Boards for LAF Captain promotion boards, this meant that as long as he was deemed “fully qualified” and since he was above-the-zone due to his non-selection in the P0312C LAF Captain Board, he was expected to be promoted to the grade of Captain on or about 1 January 2014. He asserts that his senior rater erred in the submission of the non-recommendation for promotion, which caused his subsequent non-selection for promotion. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 11 September 2009 through 28 February 2014 when he was released from active duty in the grade of First Lieutenant, O-2, with a narrative reason of “non-selection, permanent promotion” and was credited with 4 years, 5 months and 20 days of active service. _______________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void the contested PRF. DPSID states that based upon the information presented the applicant has not provided compelling evidence to substantiate the contested PRF was unjust or inaccurate as written. Based on lack of corroborating evidence and the presumed legitimacy of the senior rater’s overall recommendation on the subject PRF, they recommend that no removal be made to the contested PRF as currently exists in the member’s record. They presume, in the absence of any contradictory evidence that IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, the senior rater used the whole person factors in evaluating the applicant. Whole person factors include job performance, leadership; professional competence; breadth and depth of experience; job responsibility; academic and professional military education; specific achievements and the officer's future promotion potential. Ultimately, the information documented on the PRF is at the senior rater’s discretion. Any accomplishments the applicant references in his claim were reported in various OPRs and earned decorations spanning his career. The PRF is a tool to point promotion board members to the documented record to review accomplishments/impacts about an officer's performance. It is not the sole document that weighs on the applicant's promotion, and is only a recommendation. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request that his corrected record be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by all the impacted promotion boards. DPSOO states that their evaluation of this request requires them to rely on the opinion of other Air Force experts. As such, based on HQ AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation to deny relief, they recommend denial for SSB consideration. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 November 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To date, a response has not been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ 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 concerning the applicant’s requests to correct his record to remove his Air Force Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered for the calendar year (CY) 2013 Captain, Central Selection Board (CSB), P0313C, and that his corrected record be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of Captain by all impacted boards. The Board took note of the applicant’s contention that his senior rater erred in the submission of the non-recommendation for promotion, which caused his subsequent non-selection for promotion. However, we do not find this contention sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. We find no evidence showing that the applicant’s non-selection for promotion and subsequent separation is contrary to governing policies. While we are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, in the absence of evidence indicating he was treated differently than others who are similarly situated, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. With regard to the applicant’s request that the 21 May 2013, memorandum from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Executive Officer (AFLCMC/HI) be removed from his record, we note this type of memorandum is not maintained in any official Air Force record. As such, we find no basis to act on this part of the applicant’s request. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 16 December 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05883 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 29 Sep 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 14 Oct 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 2014.