RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-01743

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She receive special selection board (SSB) consideration for promotion to colonel.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although she had made the corrections before the board, her records were inaccurate at the time she met her promotion board in Oct 17.  Her career data brief had major errors to include giving her credit for assignments she never had and failing to give her credit for assignments she had.  It also did not list the correct dates of her assignments.  

In an additional submission, she states AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, does not provide a cut-off period to review records.  Since a reasonable timeframe is not defined, the AFI should be interpreted to what is most favorable to the member, not the Government.  It is unfair for ARPC to use an AFI to excuse derelict work.  

She has a very good record and is competitive for promotion.  Her career data brief does not match her records and is not an accurate picture.  She addressed the error with her post-board counselor who works for the Board Secretariat.  She stated it is the member’s responsibility to verify the accurateness of their records.  When she explained she verified and corrected her records in Aug 17, two months before the promotion board, she stated her records had been incorrect for sometime and she had not complied with the AFI.   She provides a chronological list of communication with MyPers from Feb to May 18.   The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

The applicant provides an e-mail dated 6 Apr 18 with ARPC/JA staff, which confirms she attended the CY17 Judge Advocate Development Team (DT) board 31 Jul to 4 Aug 17.  During the DT board, she discussed required corrections to her career brief with the ARPC staff and the promotion board directorate in preparation for the upcoming colonel’s promotion board.  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 presented no documentation to show she exercised reasonable diligence in identifying or correcting the errors as required by DODI 1320.11, Special Selection Boards, and AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force.   

The applicant was assigned to an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) position on 1 May 16 and was considered by the CY17 AFR PR Line and Nonline Colonel Promotion Selection Board.  She was properly considered but not selected for promotion.  The applicant had the option to write a letter to the board calling attention to any matter she considered important.  However, no letter to the board was received from the applicant.  

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 14502 and AFI 36-2504, to grant a SSB, the promotion board must have acted contrary to law, there was an administrative error or the board did not consider material information that should have been available.  There is no evidence she attempted to correct her assignment history prior to the board convening other than conversations with ARPC personnel while attending a DT, which did not create an action request.  After the board, ARPC/DPA corrected the applicant’s duty history on 15 May 18.  On 4 Jun 18, ARPC/PB denied her request for a SSB.  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 19 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit D).  She requests the BCMR disregard the advisory.  The colonel who signed the advisory is not a neutral party but is intimate with the case and is misrepresenting the facts.  It is unreasonable to state she could have written a letter to the Board.  There was an administrative error to her career data and the dates of her assignments did not match.  Her career data brief is still not correct even after all this time.   There were 44 MyPers conversations going back and forth.  ARPC closed her tickets multiple times and kept reopening them when asked to stop closing them because her history was still not correct.  

The advisory states there is no evidence she attempted to correct the assignment history errors prior to the board, other than conversations with ARPC personnel while attending a DT board.  She finds this insulting as she did more than have conversations.  She watched as her records were updated on a computer screen and her records were corrected in time for the board.  

The regulations do not require or intend members to go to extreme measures to get their records updated.  They require reasonable diligence.  The regulations assume the military does their part to make it possible for members to update their records and make corrections with quality.  She exercised due diligence.  It is unfair to hold her to such an unfair/impossible process.   The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  While ARPC/PB recommends denial stating she did not exercise reasonable due diligence in correcting the errors in her records prior to the convening of the promotion board, we disagree.  Based on the evidence provided, to include MyPers emails and her attendance at the DT where she personally discussed the needed corrections with ARPC staff members, we find the applicant exercised due diligence.  We find it unreasonable and not in the interest of justice to hold her solely responsible given the failure of Air Force personnel to make the corrections to her selection folder prior to the convening of the promotion board.  Moreover, the applicant in her rebuttal response provides further evidence of her ongoing efforts to have her duty history corrected.  Therefore, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.  

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 THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show she be considered by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to colonel for the CY17 AFR Colonel Promotion Selection 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-2018-01743 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 18 and 17 Sep 18.  

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following in Docket Number BC-2018-01743:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 30 Apr 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, ARPC/PB, w/atchs, dated 25 Jun 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 19 Jul 18.
Exhibit E:  Applicant’s response, dated 

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