RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01060 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He receives a direct promotion to the grade of colonel. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

It took significant time to get his officer performance report 
(OPR) and his promotion recommendation form (PRF) corrected, 
which diminished his chances for promotion by the Calendar Year 
2003 (CY03) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) Special 
Selection Board (SSB). He feels the “Definitely Promote (DP)” 
rating he received on his PRF prevented his records from 
blending in with the other ten benchmark records. He 
understands that SSBs are the primary authority for out-of-cycle 
promotions; however, if a precedent has been set whereby the 
Board has given a direct promotion in the past, he believes his 
case warrants such a promotion. 

 

He contends an error on his OPR closing 23 February 2003 took 
one and one-half years to correct which cause his PRF to take 
over 14 months to process. Therefore, he feels the SSB process 
prejudices his IPZ record as an officer passed over several 
times, as well as the effects of receiving an unearned “DP.” 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the grade of lieutenant 
colonel with an effective and Date of Rank (DOR) of 
1 April 1999. He was considered and nonselected for promotion 
to the grade of colonel by the CY03B, CY04A, CY05A, CY06A, 
CY07A, and the CY08A Colonel CSBs. Additionally, he was 
considered and nonselected by SSB for the CY03B Colonel CSBs on 
25 Sep 06, 24 Sep 07, and 29 Sep 08, and the CY04A Colonel CSB, 
which convened on 22 Jan 07. 

 

The applicant's OPR profile for the last eight reporting periods 
follows: 


 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 08 Apr 01 Meet Standards (MS) 

 08 Apr 02 MS 

# 14 Feb 03 MS 

 14 Feb 05 MS 

 14 Feb 06 MS 

 14 Feb 07 MS 

 21 Dec 07 MS 

 21 Dec 08 MS 

 

# Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for 
promotion to the grade of Colonel by the CY03B Colonel CSB. 

 

The AFBCMR corrected the applicant’s record by replacing his “P” 
rating with a “DP” on his CY03B PRF. However, he was 
nonselected for promotion to colonel. Subsequently, he 
requested an opportunity to write a letter to the CY03B CSB 
addressing the “DP” which was corrected by the Board. His 
records were administratively corrected and he was again 
considered and nonselected by the CY03B CSB SSB. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. They found no relevant evidence 
of an error or injustice. They note the results of the CSBs 
were based on a complete review of the applicant’s entire 
selection record, assessing whole person factors such as job 
performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of 
experience, leadership and education. Although officers may be 
qualified – in the judgment of selection board members vested 
with discretionary authority to make the selections –- he/she 
may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited 
number of promotion vacancies. Furthermore, granting a direct 
promotion would be unfair to all the other officers who have 
extremely competitive records but did not get promoted. 

 

Additionally, both Congress and the Department of Defense (DoD) 
have made clear their intent that errors ultimately affecting 
promotions should be resolved through the SSB process. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He notes that AFPC/DPSOO paints a very dismal picture of six 
nonselections from 2003. However, he is only challenging his 
IPZ 2003 board. The other boards were above-the-primary zone 
(APZ) and would not have mattered had he been promoted by the 
IPZ. The IPZ 2003 board promoted 44.7 percent (355 out of 795 


candidates). If it wasn’t for the material error in his 2003 
OPR, he very likely would have been promoted with the awarded 
“DP” on his PRF. He notes all of the SSBs prior to 2007 
evaluated records with the material error. As a matter of fact, 
he requested his records not go before an SSB until his records 
were corrected. He met two SSBs with the corrected record; 
however, both SSBs evaluated his records as a six-time pass over 
lieutenant colonel with a “DP.” He feels this prejudiced him 
from receiving a fair evaluation. 

 

Further, he believes because of the SSB process, the chances are 
very high that his was the only record with a “DP” and could not 
transparently blend with the benchmark records. He was allowed 
to send a letter to the board and was not selected. In 
hindsight, his chances for promotion in the SSB process would 
have been better with a “P” recommendation because his records 
would have been able to blend better with the benchmark records. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The 
applicant’s complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his 
contentions were duly noted, including his response to the Air 
Force evaluation; however, in our view, the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) has conducted a thorough review of 
the evidence of record and addressed the issues presented by the 
applicant and we are in agreement with its opinion and 
recommendation. We do not find the applicant’s assertions and 
the documentation presented in support of his appeal 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by 
the OPR. The applicant was afforded opportunities through the 
correction of records process and subsequently received SSB 
consideration for several promotion boards, and was nonselected. 
He now asserts because of slow responses to his appeals and 
specific corrections to his record, his promotion record is now 
prejudiced because they cannot blend with the benchmark records 
being considered under the SSB process; we are not so convinced. 
In our view, the SSB process is the best method to compete for 
promotion on a fair and equitable basis. Therefore, in view of 
the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

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-2009-01060 in Executive Session on 26 January 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 09. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 30 Apr 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Jun 09. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair