RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04723 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2009B (CY09B) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central Selection Board (CSB) with a substituted Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF). __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His In-the-Promotion-Zone (IPZ) PRF for the CY09B CSB contained errors and did not match his career accomplishments. There were critical career accomplishments that were omitted and the errors remained despite his efforts to resolve the problem prior to the CSB convening. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, PRFs, electronic communications, non-selection notification, Officer Selection Brief, Awards and Decoration Information, Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), and Education/Training Reports. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. __________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of major (O-4) with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date and Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date of 15 July 1995. He has two non-selections to the grade of Lt Col by the CY09B and CY10A Lt Col CSBs. The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant service records are contained in the evaluations by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibit B and C. __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to substitute his CY09B PRF. DPSID states that the applicant’s request to substitute his PRF lacks support from his Senior Rater; therefore, there is no signature on the substituted PRF provided. A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities. The applicant reviewed his PRF in accordance with (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 2406, paragraph 8.1.4.1.7., and pointed out the errors on the PRF prior to the CSB. The Senior Rater made two corrections to the PRF and submitted the new PRF to the applicant IAW paragraph 8.5. While the applicant believes that this is an injustice, IAW AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.6.2.2., the Senior Rater 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 the PRF may not be worded the way the applicant would like to describe his accomplishments, the selection board had his entire Officer Selection Record (OSR) that clearly outlined his accomplishments since the day he came on active duty. IAW AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.6, to have the PRF corrected in Section IV (Promotion Recommendation), it requires the concurrence of both the Senior Rater and the Management Level Review (MLR) President. By the applicant’s own words, the Senior Rater considered the applicant’s request and made adjustments to the PRF accordingly. To grant the applicant’s request would be to discard the Senior Rater’s input and authority. The applicant has failed to provide support from the Senior Rater or MLR President. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for consideration by an SSB. DPSOO states that their evaluation requires them to rely on the opinions of other Air Force experts. As such, they have reviewed the evaluation from DPSID and based on their recommendation to deny the applicant’s request to substitute the CY09B PRF, they recommend the Board deny his request for SSB consideration. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 April 2011 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. __________________________________________________________________ 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 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2010-04723 in Executive Session on 8 September 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04723: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Feb 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 4 Mar 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 11. Vice Chair