RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-00471

XXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His promotion recommendation form (PRF) for the CY18 B (LAF) Central Selection Board (P0617C) be replaced with an updated version provided with his application and he receive additional promotion consideration by a special selection board (SSB).

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

On 29 Jan 20, he was notified by AFPC that the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) approved replacing his 15 Jun 15 OPR and granting him an SSB, but denied replacing the updated PRF.  However, both his senior rater and the management level review (MLR) board president concur that his revised PRF more accurately assesses his performance and includes positive information that was “unintentionally omitted.”  

In support of his request, the applicant provides the original PRF, the revised version of the PRF, and two memoranda from the MLR president and senior rater, which indicate the following changes to the PRF:  

1. Change to Line 2

	Original: DG OTS; top 10% IDE fnl exam; 4x #I CGO; FAO w/Chinese/Korean
	lang skills; led interagency talks; int'l ngotiatr

	Revised: DG OTS; top 10% IDE fnl exam; 4x #1 CGO; FAO w/Chinese/Korean
	lang skills; China/DPRK expert/instructor f/AFSOS

2. Change to Line 9

	Original: #3/20 0-5s I/APZ this board! Jnt savvy ldr w/ success across the board--send
	to SDE ASAP, then definitely Gp/CC!

	Revised: #3/20 0-5s 1/APZ- lf I had l more DP it's his! Joe's leadership is vital to
	msn success; SDE ASAP, definitely Gp/CC!

In addition, the MLR President and senior rater state that the rationale for these changes is that the revised statements were unintentionally omitted, but were key performance factors, which could have positively influenced his recommendation at the MLR.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an Air Force lieutenant colonel (O-5).

On 29 Jan 20, a memorandum with subject, “Special Selection Board (SSB) Consideration,” provided by the applicant, states that the ERAB approved replacing his 15 Jun 15 OPR and approved SSB consideration by the CY18B Col (LAF) Central Selection Board. 

For more information, see the advisory at Exhibit B.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, Attachment 2, Appeal Guidance for applicants, Paragraph A2.6. Special Information on Appealing AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF): 
Sub-paragraph A2.6.1. General Information. A material error in the PRF itself; substantive changes to the record of performance used to assess your performance-based potential; or, a material error in the PRF preparation process, may justify changes to your PRF. Normally, comments and recommendations are required from the senior rater who signed the PRF and the MLR President who reviewed it. 

Sub-paragraph A2.6.1.1. Substantive additions, deletions, changes, or corrections to an officer's record of performance include voiding a referral or negative evaluation; adding a previously missing OPR or TR; removing a negative endorsement or adding a positive one; replacing an evaluation with a substantially different one, and so on. The change must, in effect, remove negative information from an officer’s record or add positive information which was not previously known. A simple administrative change to an evaluation rarely meets this criteria.

Sub-paragraph A2.6.1.2. SR and MLR Presidents who provide comments and recommendations must carefully consider what, if any, impact the correction or change may have had on the final PRF content, rating, or the preparation process. They will need to explain the change to the record of performance, its impact on the PRF, and how the requested PRF action relates to the changed record of performance. Appeals based on errors in the preparation process must also be fully explained and substantiated. SRs must weigh the impact of the processing error on the PRF and explain how the error justifies the requested PRF change.

Sub-paragraph A2.6.2.2. Changing the (Promotion Recommendation) requires the concurrence of both the SR and MLR President. The PRF should “provide key performance factors from the officer’s entire career.” Obviously, the space on the form is limited and it is not usually possible to describe every achievement in an officer’s career. The SR bears the responsibility of selecting what to include in the PRF, and what to leave out; which portions of the officer’s career to concentrate on, and which portions to have supported by the record. While he or she may request inputs from subordinate commanders, to do so is not mandatory. To change the promotion recommendation, the SR will need to demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF; a material error in the record of performance which substantially impacted the content of the PRF; or, a material error in the process by which the PRF was crafted. In all instances, the requested change to the promotion recommendation must be related to the documented error. Appeals to rewrite the promotion recommendation simply to include different, but previously known or documented accomplishments will not be approved.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP3SP, recommends denying the application.  Based on the analysis of the facts and documentation provided by the applicant, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate an error or injustice and there is no material error in the PRF preparation process or a substantial change to the record that would support the applicant’s request.  

The ERAB partially approved a request from the applicant to replace his 2015 OPR, but denied updating his 2018 PRF.  Although the applicant’s senior rater and the MLR president support the change to the language on the PRF, AFI 36-2406, paragraph A2.6.1.2 states “must carefully consider what, if any, impact the correction or change may have had on the final PRF content, rating, or the preparation process.”  In addition, paragraph A2.6.2.2 states, “Appeals to rewrite the promotion recommendation simply to include different, but previously known or documented accomplishment will not be approved.”  As such, the senior rater and MLR Presidents both admit that the information for the requested PRF update is to provide a stronger push, but the information was in fact known at the time the PRF was prepared.  Furthermore, the bottom of the AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form, specifically states that it is the officer’s responsibility to “review their record of performance, Officer Pre-Selection Brief, and PRF for accuracy.” It goes on to state “Prior to your board convening date, you must contact your senior rater to discuss if your PRF is not accurate, omits pertinent information or has an error.” 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 24 Jul 20 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2020-00471 in Executive Session on 15 Sep 20:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 Feb 20.
Exhibit B:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 25 Jul 20.
Exhibit C:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 24 Jul 20.

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