RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00735 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be changed to reflect he 
received a “definite promote (DP).” 

 

2. He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel (0-6) by 
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2007A (CY07A) 
Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He was prevented from being considered for rank specific 
schools, command selection, and other PCS opportunities prior to 
and after his in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) board convened. While 
assigned to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as the Operations 
Officer a bias occurred that had a direct impact on his 2007 
officer performance report (OPR) and IPZ PRF recommendations from 
his additional rater and senior rater. He was not aware that he 
could write to the promotion board to alert them of his situation. 
During his tour with the JSF, there were multiple programmatic 
slips due to engineering and early production issues that prevented 
him from meeting his career path progression. In Aug 06, he met 
with the 412th Commander regarding his Senior Developmental 
Education (SDE) and Command selection opportunities. It was after 
his discussion with the commander that it became clear his chain of 
command had decided to keep him assigned to the JSF in lieu of 
being reassigned to attend in-residence SDE. 

 

2. In Sep 06, he applied to the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) 
Commanding Officer Selection Board; however, in Oct 06, his 
commander returned from the selection board and advised him that 
his name would not be on the list. His commander stated the board 
wanted to send him to a Test Squadron Command, so he pulled his 
package because he needed him at the JSF. He was told by his 
commander not to worry that there was a plan. In late Oct 06, he 
discussed his situation of non-selection for Command with Col C who 
told him that he had talked to the wing commander who also stated 
he had a plan and not to worry. In Feb 07, he received his IPZ PRF 
that included a statement on line nine which reflected “My next DP! 
F-35’s flight test ops officer, in place due to critical JSF need! 
DP now, then SDE and OG/CC!” It was his understanding the TW/CC 
had drafted the words to articulate the bias for the senior rater 


which had made it necessary for him to be retained at Edwards AFB 
for JSF. 

 

3. He applied for instructor duty; however, he was informed the 
commander would not endorse or forward his application. In Aug 07, 
he was passed over for 0-6 IPZ and received a non-selection 
briefing. During the briefing he was told he was strongly in the 
gray zone; he lacked commander time, school in-residence and/or a 
DP. It was noted that each element was critical due to his 
interservice transition from the Marine Corps to the Air Force. 

 

4. In Jan 08, he accomplished the programmatic milestone of 
becoming an initial government F-35 test pilot and was allowed to 
coordinate PCS orders. 

 

5. In Aug 08, he contacted Col B and Col C in an effort to gain 
their support by providing an affidavit concerning the potential 
bias surrounding the needs of the Air Force that prohibited him 
from being selected for SDE or command. In support of his request, 
Col C provided a memorandum; however, Col B asked for additional 
time to review his records. After review, Col B stated “I called 
AFMC to recall the board details; you did not score well enough to 
become a commander.” Col C also stated “I did not pull your 
package from board consideration and you must have misunderstood 
the conversation from Oct 2006” and “had there been intent to 
select you for other than JSF Flight Test Command, I would have 
fought it.” 

 

6. He requested the Air Force Inspector General (IG) office to 
investigate his situation; however, the IG determined not to 
investigate the matter as no clear AFI had been violated. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of letters 
of support and e-mail communications. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
lieutenant colonel (0-5). He was non-selected four times to the 
grade of colonel by the CY07A, CY08A, CY09A, and the CY09D Colonel 
CSBs. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the request to award a “DP” or to 
reaccomplish the PRF. DPSIDEP only addresses the Officer 
Performance Report (OPR) and PRF issue. The applicant did not file 
an appeal through the Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); 
however, the ERAB reviewed the application and is not convinced the 
OPR or PRF are inaccurate or unjust and recommends denial. In 
addition, the applicant did not provide any supporting 
documentation from the senior rater and management level review 
president IAW the governing AFI to support his contentions. 
Although he did take the matter to the IG, they dismissed the case 
because no clear AFI had been violated. DPSIDEP also states the 
applicant does not specifically address what error or injustice he 
alleges with the contested OPR; however, he requests the “P” be 
changed to a “DP” on his PRF. As far as the applicant’s contention 
there was a period of command bias or injustice which prevented him 
from consideration for rank specific school, command selection or 
PCS ultimately impacting his record, DPSIDEP disagrees stating his 
OPR has an assignment recommendation; a school recommendation; and 
a stratification statement of “#1 of 11.” DPSIDEP notes the non-
select counselor is only able to give the applicant recommendations 
on why he/she perceives the reason(s) for non-selection. As for 
the “DP” recommendation, the applicant received the next best push, 
not only a PME and command push of “My next DP!” and “DP now” on 
the bottom line of the PRF. 

 

The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of his request for SSB consideration. 
After reviewing DPSIDEP’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s 
request for award of a “DP” or reaccomplish the PRF, DPSOO 
recommends denial for SSB consideration. In addition, as 
instructed by the Officer Preselection Brief, it clearly states 
that officers have the option to write a letter to the board and 
address any matter of record concerning themselves they believe is 
important to their consideration for promotion; however, the time 
to submit the letter is prior to the convening of the original 
board, not after non-selection for promotion. 

 

The DPSOO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responds by stating he is concerned that neither 
DPSIDEP nor DPSOO attempted to understand the specific situation 
which created a lack of career enhancing information in his record, 
and it appears, deferred to each other without making an 
independent evaluation. He also reiterates his original 
contentions and asks to be granted SSB consideration in order to 
have the opportunity to provide the details that have been made 
available to him, his former commanders, and additional supporters. 

 


The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit 
F. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 with regard to the 
applicant’s request that his PRF be changed to reflect a “DP.” We 
took note of his contentions of why his PRF should be changed; 
however, in the absence of support from the senior rater and the 
management level review president, we do not find an adequate basis 
to change his PRF. Therefore, we agree with the Air Force 
Evaluation Programs office and adopt the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error or injustice in this matter. 

 

4. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of an injustice with regard to the applicant’s 
request for SSB consideration. In this respect, the Board majority 
believes that given the persuasive testimony of the applicant and 
the Vice Admiral, the applicant should be afforded the opportunity 
to be considered by the CY07A Colonel CSB only if he writes a 
letter to the board. Therefore, the majority of the Board 
recommends the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent 
indicated below. 

 

5. 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 our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that contingent upon him 
writing a letter to the board president, be considered for 
promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) 
for Calendar Year 2007A (CY07A) Colonel Central Selection Board. 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2010-00735 in Executive Session on 23 April 2009, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

  Panel Chair 
 
  Member 

  Member 

 

By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as 
recommended. XXX voted to deny the applicant’s request and 
submitted a Minority Report, which is at Exhibit G. The following 
documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 23 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit G. Minority Report, dated 16 Dec 10. 

  

 Panel Chair