RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05180 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive supplemental consideration for retention on active duty for his Reduction-in-Force (RIF) Board (L0414B), utilizing an updated Retention Recommendation Form (RRF). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His most recent OPR covering the period 16 Aug 13 through 15 Aug 14 was not on file or incorporated into his Retention Recommendation Form (RRF) for consideration by the RIF Board due to delays and administrative issues on the part of his chain of command. His OPR, which closed out on 15 Aug 14, was not completed until 19 Oct 14, and his RRF used by the 9 Oct 14 RIF Board did not include the last full year of his accomplishments. Therefore, he was not given a fair opportunity on the Board. The late OPR contained the strongest stratification of his Field Grade Officer career. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Jun 02. On 2 Dec 14, the applicant’s commander notified him that the FY15 RIF Board considered him for retention, but did not select him for continued service on active duty, establishing a mandatory separation date (MSD) of 30 Apr 15. On 30 Apr 15, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Reduction in Force,” and was credited with 12 years, 10 months, and 18 days of active service, and received separation pay. Under Reserve Order PC-01156, dated 4 Jun 15, the applicant was appointed a Reserve Officer in the Selected Reserve. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), 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. On 19 Nov 14, the applicant appealed to the Evaluations Report Appeals Board (ERAB), requesting he be granted supplemental reconsideration for the L0414B RIF Board, utilizing his latest OPR covering the period 16 Aug 13 through 15 Aug 14. The ERAB granted his request for reconsideration, but when the RIF Board reconvened it still did not approve him for retention. In his current application, the applicant is requesting his RRF be updated to incorporate the highlights from his most current OPR, to include the stratification statement, and he again receive RIF Board supplemental reconsideration. AFI 36-2406, paragraph A2.5.23 states “Re-accomplishing an evaluation. If you are requesting an evaluation be re-accomplished, you must furnish a substitute evaluation in your appeal case,” and “The most effective evidence consists of statements from the actual evaluators who signed the contested evaluation. These statements should cite important facts or circumstances that were unknown when the evaluators signed the report…” The applicant failed to provide a reaccomplished RRF along with the statements of his evaluators to be reconsidered. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DP2SP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an SSB indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant request to update his RRF with the information in his most current OPR and to grant a new SSB for the LO414B RIF Board because the applicant did not provide a substitute RRF signed by the original evaluators or adequate justification from the evaluators or an error. In addition, eligible officers meeting a RIF Board have the option to submit a letter to the board president addressing any matter of record concerning themselves they believe is important to their consideration for retention. As such, the applicant could have written a letter to the board members informing them of the accomplishments mentioned in the report. Based upon AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s RRF be updated, DP2SP recommends denial of his request for an SSB. A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 Feb 16 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-05180 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05180 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Dec 15. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 25 Jan 16, w/atchs. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 16. 2