RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02249

 	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her promotion deferrals for major in 2008 and 2009 be removed from her record.

Her grade of captain be reinstated and she receive all back pay and entitlements.  

In her rebuttal response, she receive special selection board (SSB) consideration for the V0409A Major Promotion Selection Board.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 2008, she was considered for promotion to major.  Her servicing military personnel flight (MPF) never issued a notice of promotion eligibility and she was not provided an officer preselection brief (OPB) as required per AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selection Continuation. This resulted in her nonselection for promotion since several required items were missing from her records.  

In 2009, her officer performance report (OPR) and two letters of evaluations (LOE) were submitted to cover her Army and Air Force service.  The reports intended to cover gap periods in 2001 and 2004 were incomplete and erroneous.  The AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (LOE), listed a technical sergeant (TSgt) as her rater, although she was an officer and Block VI contained information showing the LOEs were referral.  

She provides letters of support from the North Carolina National Guard (NCNG) Assistant Adjutant General Guard dated 7 May 17 and the 145th Force Support Squadron Commander dated 7 May 17.   The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a technical sergeant (TSgt) in the ANG.

The applicant’s LOEs for the reporting periods 9 Feb 01 to 14 May 01 and 17 May 04 to 1 Nov 04, state “No report required according to AFI 36-2406.”  Block VI, Referral Report, was not completed.    

On 9 Apr 09, the applicant was notified her mandatory separation date (MSD) was established as 1 Nov 09 per 10 U.S.C § 14505 due to her second deferral for promotion to major.

On 20 Nov 09, the applicant enlisted in the ANG for a period of 6 years in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt).  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/PB recommends denial.   The applicant was appointed in the Air Force Reserve on 5 Jan 08 with an inter-service transfer from the Army National Guard.  Based on her date of rank (DOR) of 30 Nov 01, she was eligible and considered for promotion by the FY08 AFR PR Line and Nonline Major Promotion Selection Board but not selected.  She was also considered by the CY09 AFR Major Promotion Board and not selected.  Per 10 U.S.C. §14301, officers on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) must be considered for promotion when eligible.  Since the applicant was assigned to the RASL when the boards convened, she was required to meet both promotion boards.  Per AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, officers are required to monitor their own eligibility and ensure their officer selection record (OSR) is correct and up to date.   

The AF Form 77 is used to document a break in service, which was the case for the applicant.   Promotion board panel members are briefed the AF Form 77 is simply a void in the documentation of the officer’s record of performance for the period.   There is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 2 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit D).  She was missing an Air Force OPR and attempted to get her records corrected.  She provides her OPR for 2 Nov 06 to 1 Nov 07, which was signed by her commander on 17 Jul 08.  The OPR was processed to the military personnel data system (MILPDS) on 27 Aug 08 and this date is reflected on the side of the form.

She was never notified of an upcoming promotion board and due to the proximity of transferring to a new unit, neither her nor her gaining commander received notification of an upcoming board.  Her commander provides a letter dated 30 Mar 17, which states he did not have an opportunity to review her OPB.  She did not know she met a board until she received her nonselection for promotion notification.  Since she did not know she was meeting a board, she could not have written a letter to the Board.  Should she have known, she would have submitted a letter explaining the difficulties of obtaining an OPR and highlight she was in the process of transferring units.

The LOEs are a cut and paste and incorrectly include information pertaining to referrals.  These comments give a negative view of her record.  There is enough reason to believe anyone looking at the LOEs would deny promotion.  She should be granted SSB consideration for promotion by the V0409A Major Promotion Selection board and the non-selections be removed from her record.  

She does not dispute the board was conducted per 10 U.S.C. § 1401.  The board worked with what they had or did not have.  However, her erroneous LOEs biased the board.  She was also unaware of meeting the 2008 board due to the failure of the MPF to notify her.  Since a significant time has lapsed, she is at a disadvantage and unable to provide further proof she submitted any documentation.  She did everything possible to ensure her records were correct.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant has presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate an injustice or error regarding part, but not all of her request.  In particular, we find the applicant was not properly notified of her eligibility for promotion to major by the 2008 and 2009 promotion boards.  In this respect, it appears due to her inter-service transfer from the Army National Guard on 5 Jan 08 and change in her unit of assignment, neither the applicant nor her commander were provided copies of her OPB or timely made aware of her promotion eligibility.  With respect to the applicant’s contention her LOEs were completed in error, we find no evidence this to be the case.  It appears the LOEs were completed to administratively document the gaps in her evaluation history as required by AFI 36-2406 and were not referral LOEs.   In view of the above, we recommend the applicant be considered by a SSB for the FY08 AFR PR Line and Nonline Major Promotion Selection Board and the CY09 AFR PR Line and Nonline Major Promotion Selection Board.  However, we find the applicant has provided insufficient evidence to warrant reinstating her to the grade of captain and the promotion deferrals be removed from her records at this time.  Therefore, the Board recommends correcting the applicant’s records to the extent indicated below.  

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that she receive special selection board (SSB) consideration for the FY08 AFR PR Line and Nonline Major Promotion Selection Board and the CY09 AFR PR Line and Nonline Major Promotion Selection Board.  

However, regarding the remainder of the applicant’s request, the Board recommends the applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice and the application could only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-02249 in Executive Session on 5 Sep 18:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 9 May 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, ARPC/PB, dated 9 Jul 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 2 Aug 18.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 7 Aug 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.