RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-02834

                                        COUNSEL:

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the  Calendar  Year  2009C
(CY09C) Major (Maj) Central Selection Board (CSB) be reaccomplished.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The PRF in question indicated he lacked performance as  several  items
were omitted.  He further contends his duty title on the contested PRF
should read “Chief, Unit Training” versus “Wing Plans Officer”.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies  of  documents
extracted from his military records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain.

The applicant did not  file  an  appeal  with  the  Evaluation  Report
Appeals Board (ERAB).  However, the ERAB reviewed the application  and
recommends denial.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a captain is as follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

            10 May 05             Meets Standards (MS)
            10 May 06             MS
            30 Mar 07             Training Report (TR)
            10 May 07             MS
            10 May 08             MS
            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

            10 May 09             MS
            10 May 10             MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to
correct the contested PRF.  AFPC/DPSIDEP notes there  is  no  evidence
the report is unjust or inaccurate.  Although, the applicant  contends
his Senior Rater omitted several items from the PRF, he has failed  to
provide documentation to prove this or submitted a reaccomplished  PRF
with support from the Senior Rater and  the  MLR  President.   DPSIDEP
contacted the applicant’s Senior Rater regarding his understanding and
options that were available on completing the PRF.  The  Senior  Rater
chose to write the PRF in the best interest he saw  fit.   The  Senior
Rater does not support the applicant’s request to change the report or
upgrade  the  PRF  to  a  “Definitely  Promote”  Recommendation.   The
governing instruction states that changing a promotion  recommendation
requires the concurrence of both the Senior Rater and Management Level
Review President.

The applicant contends his duty title is incorrect  on  his  PRF.   He
believes it should read “Chief,  Unit  Training”  versus  “Wing  Plans
Officer” since he had a permanent change  of  assignment  (PCA).   The
Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) has the effective date of  the
PCA as 8 Sep 09 and the duty title of “OIC,  Unit  Training”  with  an
effective date of 31 Mar 10.   The  governing  instruction  states  to
enter the approved duty title as reflected  in  the  PDS.  Pending  or
projected duty titles will not be used. The  PCA  was  after  the  PRF
accounting date of 5 Jun 09 and after the 60th day, i.e.,  3  Sep  09,
the earliest it could be signed.  The duty title for this  PCA  action
was “OIC, Quality Assurance” effective 8 Sep 09.  The Senior Rater was
following the instructions listed in the governing instruction at  the
time the PRF was written.

The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he submitted a revised PRF for  consideration  on
30 Sep 10 and had sought the support of his prior Senior Rater, but he
declined.  He was not given any guidance on  whom  the  MLR  President
would be to contact.  He contends  all  the  unfavorable  and  adverse
actions upon his career at  the  time  were  unfounded  based  on  his
performance.

Appendix D2. DoD 5200.2-R, Section 8-201 and Appendix N from  the  DoD
Security Clearance Ajudication and  Appeal  Process  states  that  “no
unfavorable administrative action shall be taken under  the  authority
of this  regulation  unless  the  individual  concerned  has  been…<a.
through e>.”  At the time of his PRF  and  the  CSB,  he  was  in  the
process of adjudicating his  security  clearance.   His  Senior  Rater
definitely took unfavorable administrative actions  by  omitting  four
hard hitting data points from his  PRF  and  taking  his  career  from
Definitely Promote status to a Promote.  It took him a  long  time  to
get clarification on how  a  security  clearance  of  a  line  officer
impacts their performance  directly.   Nevertheless,  the  process  is
separate for a reason and had his statement of reason been received by
13 Nov 09 (end of promotion board) his Senior Rater would have grounds
to do what he did.  However, he did not have a valid  reason  to  mark
down his exemplary performance since the Statement  of  Reasons  (SOR)
did not come until roughly two months later.

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

The applicant’s “secret” security clearance was  reinstated  effective
26 Jan 11.   He  believes  all  adverse  actions  against  should   be
reconsidered.  He has, during the almost two-year  battle  experienced
daily ramifications, including lost TDYs, suspended access to  do  his
job and supervise personnel, daily leadership dilemmas and a cancelled
assignment in December 2010.  His opportunity for upward mobility  and
two promotion boards were adversely affected.  He has no  qualms  with
the leadership at Beale AFB in how they handled a line officer without
a clearance.  However, he feels it inhibited 9 RW/CC to give him a  DP
for the 2010 CSB (Exhibit F).

On  25  Mar  11,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  his  case   was
administratively closed per his 22 Mar 11 request (Exhibit H).

On 11 May 2011, the applicant’s counsel requests the case be  reopened
for consideration based on the  following:   the  applicant’s  overall
record, the impact of not having a clearance, his professionalism  did
not falter, and the lack of having a clearance made him ineligible for
a flight command or operations officer slot (Exhibit I).

In a letter dated 12  Jun  11,  retired  Maj  and  Mrs  W.  state  the
applicant has been subjected to  repeated  forms  of  reprisal.   They
request  the  applicant  be  extended  on  active  duty  with  rights,
privileges and promotions afforded to officers in the 2001 year group;
and that he  be  reassigned  to  an  appropriate  career  position  at
Randolph AFB.  He be allowed three years active duty  to  rebuild  his
career (Exhibit J).

In an undated letter the applicant states that his date of  separation
has been established as 30 Sep 11.  He further states that his picture
was posted on an Air Force website for the purpose of  recruiting  for
the acquisition career field.

His squadron was recently acknowledged for the best small FSS  in  the
USAF and the best unit compliance inspection rating in history of ACC,
given to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing in June 2011 (Exhibit K).

In his 27 Jun 11 letter, Maj W  states  that  he  attended  a  Defense
Office  of  Hearings  and  Appeals  (DOHA)   hearing   in   which   an
Administrative Judge, based on the evidence and  facts  of  the  case,
exonerated him.  In addition, the applicant’s security  clearance  was
reinstated retroactive to the date is was suspended.  Maj W. questions
the movtives  of  the  noncommissioned  officer  who  worked  for  the
applicant.  He believes the applicant’s Health  Insurance  Portability
and  Accountability  Act  (HIPPA)  protections  were  violated.    The
applicant has served his country honorably and he believes  the  Board
should promote him and retain him on active duty (Exhibit L).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an  error  or  injustice  regarding  the  applicant’s
request  for  a  reaccomplished  PRF  for  the  CY09C  Maj  CSB.   The
applicant's complete submission was thoroughly  reviewed,  to  include
the rebuttal responses.  However, we do not find these assertions  and
the documentation presented in  support  of  his  appeal  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of   primary   responsibility.    Therefore,   we   agree   with   the
recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt  its  rationale  as  the
basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his  burden
of establishing that he has suffered either an error or  an  injustice
warranting corrective action.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is
not favorably considered.

4.    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 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-
2010-02834 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 11 16 Feb 11, 6 Jul  11  and
14 Jul 11 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 10, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 4 Oct 10.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Oct 10.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Nov 10, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Feb 11, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Mar ll.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 11.
      Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 11 May 11.
      Exhibit J. Letter, Character Reference, dated 12 Jun 11.
      Exhibit K. Letter, Character Reference, undated, w/atch.
      Exhibit L. Letter, Character Reference, dated 27 Jun 11.





                             Panel Chair