RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00323 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Narrative-only Performance Recommendation Form (N-O PRF) rendered for the Calendar Year 2013A (CY13A) Line of the Air Force (LAF) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central Selection Board (CSB) (PO513A) be removed from his record and replaced with the revised version he provided. 2. He be granted a Supplemental Air Force Student Management Level Review (MLR) for PO513A to re-compete for a “Definitely Promote” promotion recommendation utilizing the revised N-O PRF. 3. He be provided Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the PO513A CSB utilizing the revised N-O PRF. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to a 100 percent turnover in the Air Combat Command (ACC) Commander’s Action Group (CAG) and his senior rater being on Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment while the applicant was PCSing, his N-0 PRF contained multiple errors which unjustly resulted in his receiving a promotion recommendation of “P” at the Air Force Student MLR and not being selected for promotion to the grade of Lt Col on the PO513A CSB. He was not allowed to out-process from Langley AFB, VA until a signed N-O PRF was completed for the PO513A CSB, and his senior rater, the ACC Commander, was TDY at that time, so his senior rater approved the signature of his N-O PRF without ever having seen or reviewed the document. His end of tour decoration and Officer Performance Report (OPR) were not completed until after his N-O PRF was signed. The N-O PRF contained various material errors: the stratification statement of “#2/245 HQ ACC Maj’s” should have read “#2/248 HQ ACC Maj’s”; the stratification line “#1/12” was used twice, and Company Grade Officer of the Year (CGOY) lines were used multiple times; substantive performance from his record should have been included on the PRF, but was not; and, data contained in his final OPR and decoration should have been considered for inclusion in his PRF. His senior rater agreed the N-O PRF was not an accurate portrayal of his record of performance, and stated that he would not have approved the PRF had he seen it. The ACC/CC personally revised the applicant’s PRF and agreed the applicant should be provided consideration at a supplemental MLR. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: In Jun 12, prior to the applicant departing his assignment in the ACC CAG at Langley AFB, VA to attend Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) in-residence, ACC/CC signed a N-O PRF on the applicant for use in an Air Force Student MLR scheduled to meet from 8 to 10 Jan 13. The N-O PRF, with the Air Force Student MLR assigned recommendation of “Definitely Promote,” “Promote,” or “Do Not Promote This Board,” would be utilized on the PO513A CSB. In addition, the N-O PRF would remain in his record and be reused if a second MLR/CSB occurred while he was still in student status. On 15 Jun 12, the applicant was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal First Oak Leaf Cluster for his outstanding service during the period 6 Jun 08 through 27 Jun 12. On 9 Jul 12, the applicant received an Officer Performance Report (OPR) covering the period 16 Jan 12 through 1 Jun 12. On 11 Jan 13, the President of the Air Force Student MLR notified the applicant he received an overall promotion recommendation of “Promote” or “P” on his N-O PRF from the AF Student MLR, which would be used on the P0513A CSB scheduled for 18 Mar 13. The P0513A CSB was the applicant’s second below-the- primary zone (BPZ) Lt Col selection board. The applicant was not selected for BPZ promotion on the P0513A board. On 26 Aug 13, the applicant applied to the Evaluation Review Appeals Board (ERAB) for approval to replace the N-O PRF he received in Jun 12 with an updated version. His application contained a memorandum signed by ACC/CC noting the substantive omissions from the applicant’s original N-O PRF, forwarding a corrected version, and asking that the original N-O PRF be replaced with the updated version. The ERAB determined there was no error or injustice and denied the request. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was not selected for BPZ by the PO513A CSB. Based upon AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request to remove and replace his current N-O PRF with a revised version for reconsideration on a supplemental PO513A CSB, his request for SSB consideration should be denied. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show the report was unjust or inaccurate at the time it was written. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove his N-O PRF for the PO513A CSB and replace it with an updated version, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant did file an appeal through the ERAB, however, the ERAB denied the applicant’s request because it was not convinced an error or injustice had occurred. After a thorough review of all the supporting documentation presented to the ERAB and the BCMR, all the information the applicant is requesting be added to his PRF was available to the Senior Rater for review prior to the N-O PRF being written. The applicant states he was unable to out-process from his base until a stand- alone N-O PRF was completed, confirming he was in receipt of the N-O PRF from the Senior Rater when he departed in Jun 12. At least six months passed before the Air Force MLR convened on 8 Jan 13, and another two months passed prior to the PO513A CSB convening on 18 Mar 13. If the applicant had requested a correction to his N-O PRF in a timely manner, and his senior rater concurred, it would have been corrected prior to the Air Force Student MLR. However, there is insufficient evidence to show the applicant took any action to have his N-O PRF corrected prior to the CSB. Further, the PO513A CSB reviewed the applicant’s entire record, to include all the information the applicant is now seeking to have added to this N-O PRF. Moreover, the fact the applicant was not selected for promotion BPZ by the PO513A CSB is a very strong motivator to request the N-O PRF be rewritten and to seek reconsideration. However, the applicant did not exercise due diligence in ensuring any perceived mistakes on the N-O PRF for the PO513A CSB were addressed with his Senior Rater prior to the Air Force Student MLR or the CSB. The applicant has since had his N-O PRF updated. Finally, an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a file is accepted for record, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from the record. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was rendered in error or constituted an injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 an 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 AFPC/DPSID and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the Board notes the applicant’s letter of support from the ACC/CC, we believe it would be inappropriate for the Board to grant the applicant a supplemental Student MLR when he had ample opportunity and the personal responsibility to request any necessary corrections to his N-O PRF prior to the Student MLR. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00323 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00323 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 2 May 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 20 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.