RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-00332

XXXXXXXXX					COUNSEL: XXX

							HEARING: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected as follows:

His officer performance report (OPR) for the period 1 Jul 15 to 24 May 16 be removed from his record;

Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for promotion board M0516A be removed from his record;

He be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OPR is unjust and wrong.  The senior rater issued midterm feedback and an airman comprehensive assessment (ACA) stating the applicant was performing at or above standards.  The conduct for which the OPR was made a referral, occurred prior to the ACA and midterm feedback.  The senior rater changed his assessment in two performance categories to failing to meet standards, which were previously rated as meeting standard or above average.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is an Air Force major.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  

The applicant did file an Evaluation Review Appeal Board (ERAB) application and was denied relief to void the report as the board was not convinced of an error or injustice.  

AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, states “a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluations does not necessarily exist.”  Furthermore, there may be instances when a specific issue was not addressed during feedback; however, the lack of counseling, by itself is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or validity of the evaluation.  The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show the OPR or PRF are unjust or inaccurate as written.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denying the application.  

The applicant was a non-select to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY16A below-the-promotion zone Central Selection Board (CSB), and one non-selection from the CY17A in-the-promotion zone CSB.  AFPC Evaluation/Recognitions Programs has recommended denial of the applicant’s request to remove his OPR and PRF based on insufficient evidence of an error or injustice.  Therefore recommend the applicant’s request for SSB consideration be denied.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 25 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit E), and the applicant replied on 6 Aug 18.  The applicant contends AFPC, in their advisories, failed to address the most critical points demonstrating the unfair, unjust, and contradictory rating by the applicant’s commander.  AFPC failed to address the most compelling evidence of the applicant’s performance during the rating period.

The applicant asserts it was inexplicable for his evaluation to change from “meets” standards in Judgement and Decisions, and “above average” in Leadership Skills, in the ACA, to failing to meet standards in both categories on the OPR.  Furthermore, AFPC acknowledged there was no available evidence to support the commander’s decisions; however, there is no evidence demonstrating unsatisfactory performance by the applicant.  This lack of reliable and substantive evidence directly contradicts the regulation.   

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was timely filed.

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

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP and AFPC/DP2SP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  

The applicant be informed that the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2018-00332 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Panel Member
	, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 15 Jan 18.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 27 Apr 18.
Exhibit D:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 13 Jul 18.
Exhibit E:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 25 Jul 18.
Exhibit F:  Applicant’s response, dated 6 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.