RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04690 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. vxHis Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered on him for 
the Calendar Year 2010B (CY10B) Major Central Selection Board 
(CSB) be rewritten by his new wing chaplain. 

 

2. He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a 
Special Selection Board (SSB). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His two PRFs were written by the wing chaplain who wrote his 2008 
and 2009 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) that were voided by 
the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). 

 

The AFBCMR voided the OPRs because they considered the reports to 
be unfair and possibly biased. 

 

The same wing chaplain would not be fair and unbiased in writing 
his PRFs. The wing chaplain would not change his second PRF and 
this was the reason he was not selected for promotion to major. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
2009 and 2010 PRFs, AFBCMR documents, AF IMT 3538, Retention 
Recommendation Form, and Memorandums to the promotion boards. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of 
captain with a date of rank of 27 Oct 00. 

 

He has two nonselections to the grade of major by the CY09C and 
CY10B Major CSBs. 

 

On 7 Oct 09, the applicant submitted an application for 
correction of military records to have his OPRs closing 29 Apr 08 
and 29 Apr 09 voided; his request was approved by the AFBCMR, and 
he was granted SSB consideration. 


 

On 27 Sep 10, he met an SSB, but was not selected for promotion. 

 

He did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals 
Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. However, the ERAB 
reviewed and returned the application without action. The ERAB 
will not consider nor approve requests to change (except for 
deletions) an evaluator’s rating or comments if the evaluator 
does not support the change. The applicant failed to provide the 
ERAB with a copy of the reaccomplished report and any supporting 
documentation in which the evaluators support the change. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence 
the PRF is unjust or inaccurate. 

 

The applicant’s previous and current AFBCMR request only mentions 
that the wing chaplain who wrote the voided OPRs and PRFs could 
not be rendered in good faith. However, the applicant fails to 
mention in his request his concern regarding the Senior Rater who 
signed the original CY10B PRF. IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and 
Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 8.1.4.1.2, the senior 
rater may request subordinate supervisors provide information on 
an officer’s most recent duty performance and performance-based 
potential and may ask for suggestions based upon the officer’s 
duty performance for PRF recommendations. Although the applicant 
believes the PRF was not rendered in good faith due to the 
conflict between himself and the wing chaplain, there is no 
documentation to state the Senior Rater was biased or there was a 
conflict. 

 

The applicant has failed to provide the required documentation of 
the concurrence of both the Senior Rater and Management Level 
Review (MLR) president to have the PRF corrected. To change 
Section IV of the PRF, the Senior Rater needs 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 Section IV 
must be related to the documented error. The applicant has 
failed to prove the Senior Rater did not render the contested PRF 
in good faith. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration. DPSOO states based on the recommendation from 
DPSID to deny the applicant’s request to substitute the P0410B 
PRF, they recommend denial for SSB consideration. 

 


The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 25 Mar 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-04690 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2010-04690 was considered: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 14 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair