RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04828 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Air Force Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered for the P0507B promotion board and Air Force Form 707, Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 18 Nov 06 through 2 Jul 07 be replaced with another PRF and OPR to allow for a more traditional push line. 2. He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the calendar year 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) with the replaced PRF and OPR. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The PRF and OPR in question did not capture the true intent of his primary and additional/senior raters. His rating chain chose to document his upcoming assumption of a detachment command in lieu of a more traditional push line for squadron command and Professional Military Education (PME). He found out in 2013 that the detachment commander statement did not equate to a command push line and that the lack of a command push may be viewed as a tacit nonselection message to the promotion board. Up until this time he believed having his command billet documented was beneficial. 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 grade of major (0-4). The applicant’s OPR profile as major is as follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 1 Sep 04 Meets Standard (MS) 1 Aug 05 MS PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 1 Apr 06 MS *2 Jul 07 MS 10 Jun 08 MS 10 Jun 09 MS 31 Jan 10 MS 31 Jan 11 MS 17 Nov 11 MS 17 Nov 12 MS 14 Jun 13 MS 14 Jun 14 MS *Contested Report 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/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has not provided any persuasive evidence to show that the OPR and PRF were unjust or inaccurate as written. The application was not submitted in a timely manner. The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB), however, the ERAB was not convinced there was an error or injustice and denied the request. The applicant’s PRF and OPR have been a matter of record for eight years. The test to be applied is not merely whether the applicant discovered the error within three years, but whether through due diligence, he could or should have discovered the error. He unreasonably and inexcusably delayed asserting his claim. The applicant has waited 8 years to file this appeal and offered no justification for the extensive delay, as well as took no action on the claim prior to the year 2014. As a result of this very long delay, these factors seriously complicate any ability to determine the merits of the applicant's request. The Air Force asserts that the applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding a matter dating back 8 years has greatly complicated its ability to determine the factual merits of the applicant's position. According to AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, the applicant can request a waiver of the 3-year time limit by citing unusual circumstances that prevented filing the appeal in a timely manner. However, ratees are responsible for reviewing their records at least annually for accuracy and the board should consider the due diligence of the applicant to apply for correction. Applications that do not include a waiver will be returned without action. The grounds for a waiver do not include: Failing to understand the appeals process; Being discouraged from appealing by superiors, peers, or counselors; Failing to understand how serious an impact an evaluation could have on your career in later years; Not reviewing your records during the intervening years. The applicant has not provided a convincing circumstance that would have prevented him from submitting the application in a timely manner and although the AFBCMR is not governed by AFI-36-2406, we would recommend the denial based on timeliness alone and urge the AFBCMR to come to the same conclusion. Furthermore, the AFI states an evaluation is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non- selection for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities. The Board recognizes that non-selection for promotion is, for many, a traumatic event, and the desire to overturn that non-selection is powerful motivation to appeal. However, the Board is careful to keep the promotion and evaluation issues separated, and to focus on the evaluation only. The simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void an evaluation is not a valid basis for doing so. For example requests to add optional statements (such as DE/PME, assignment/job/command “push” recommendation, add an omitted award or stratification) to an evaluation or PRF will normally not form the basis for a successful appeal. As these statements are not mandatory for inclusion, their omission does not make the evaluation inaccurate. The individual must prove the evaluation is erroneous or unjust based on its content. They do not believe the applicant has provided sufficient, substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested PRF and OPR were rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events as he believes them to be true in his original ERAB request. 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. In order 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. It is determined that the report was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. We 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 burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial for SSB consideration indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was not selected to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0507B, P0508B, P0509B, P0510A, P0511A, P0512A, P0513A, P0514A and P0515A CSBs. The applicant provided a memorandum from his additional rater, reviewer, and senior rater, supporting substitution of the contested OPR and PRF. The Management Level Review (MLR) president at the time endorsed the memorandum. However, the applicant was not able to contact the rater to obtain concurrence on the proposed corrections to the contested report. The applicant contends that the changes to the PRF and OPR are in lieu of having a more traditional push line for squadron command and PME. However, according to the Air Force Evaluation/Recognition Programs Branch, optional statements (such as DE/PME, assignment/job/command “push” recommendation, add an omitted award or stratification) are not mandatory for inclusion on an evaluation or PRF, their omission does not make the evaluation inaccurate. The applicant must prove the evaluation is erroneous or unjust based on its content. DPSID recommends the AFBCMR deny the applicant's request to modify the PRF and OPR. DPSID contends the applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the evaluations were unjust or inaccurate at the time they were written. Their evaluation of this request requires they rely on the opinions of the Air Force experts. As such, based on the DPSID recommendation to the AFBCMR to deny the applicant’s request to modify the contested OPR and PRF, they recommend denial for SSB consideration. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 28 Oct 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and the recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant believes the absence of a traditional push line on the report in question led to his nonselection for promotion. We note the lack of a push line on a performance reports does not make the report inaccurate or unjust. Air Force policy is that statements such as, PME, “push” recommendation or stratification are not mandatory for inclusion on performance reports. We find the evidence submitted, to include statements from his rating chain, provide no evidence which would lead us to believe the contested report is not an accurate assessment of his performance during the period in question, was erroneously prepared, or that the assigned rating was in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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-2014-04828 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04828 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Sep 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 7 Oct 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 15.