RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00875 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered on him and 
viewed by the Calendar Year 2009B (P0509B) (8 Jun 09) Lieutenant 
Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be voided and replaced with 
a PRF generated by his current senior rater. 

 

2. He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col) by the 
P0509B Lt Col CSB with the corrected PRF. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The applicant presents the following major contentions: 

 

1. Sufficient and relevant evidence exits to prove an injustice 
occurred during the PRF process and on the PRF itself for the 
P0509B Lt Col CSB. 

 

2. Due to unfounded rumors and false allegations, a substantive 
change to his record of performance was created and used to 
assess his performance-based potential. The untrue allegations 
were blindly accepted by his Senior Rater and 1st Special 
Operations Wing (SOW) leaders as fact. 

 

3. The change in his record inaccurately painted him as an 
officer with decreased performance potential and negatively 
impacted his promotion opportunity. The biased and prejudicial 
actions were unjust and prevented him an equal opportunity to 
compete for promotion. 

 

4. He deployed to Iraq in late Aug 08, working as the J5 Long 
Range Planner. While deployed he dealt with a supervisor who was 
continually abusive, dismissive and condescending towards him. 
He attempted to fix the contentious relationship and when this 
failed, he notified several senior members of the serious 
maltreatment he was receiving and its negative impact to the 
mission. The situation deteriorated to the point he could not 
effectively accomplish his duties and the mission was severely 
impacted. He requested to continue working as the J5 Long Range 
Planner, but no longer under his supervisor’s direct command. 
After his request was made, he was directed by the Deputy 
Commander to move to a different office. 

 


5. His leadership used his request to be removed from his 
supervisor’s abuse as grounds for insubordination. 

 

6. A Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) was initiated 
charging him with insubordination. The allegations were later 
unsubstantiated. Unknown to him at the time, the same leadership 
alleged he had quit his post and stopped working, which witness 
statements and evidence proved untrue. His deployed commander 
ignored standard procedures regarding the CDI and his opportunity 
to defend himself against the charge. His commander forwarded 
the CDI to his home unit and failed to provide him a copy of the 
results. 

 

7. His commander used unlawful command influence by falsely 
accusing CDI witnesses who supported his case of collaboration 
and matching their testimonies. 

 

8. Because of erroneous information and rumors, a Letter of 
Admonishment (LOA) and Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) 
were drafted and processed. He was also notified that he would 
be receiving a very weak or a “Do Not Promote” PRF for his P0509B 
Lt Col promotion board. 

 

9. Despite his numerous requests to meet with the Senior Rater 
and Ops Group Commander (OG/CC) to refute the false charges, he 
was not afforded the opportunity to present his side of the story 
or provide evidence refuting the false claims. 

 

10. Both the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) and 1st SOE Chaplain met 
with his commanders to notify them there was evidence and 
testimonies, which refuted their false charges against him. 
Despite these efforts, the Senior Rater and the OG Commander 
refused to view any of the evidence. 

 

11. The 1st SOW Chaplain became frustrated with the Senior Rater 
and OG/CC’s unwillingness to view the evidence or listen to 
witness testimonies refuting the claims against him. As a 
result, the 1st SOW Chaplain felt compelled to engage the AFSOC 
Vice Commander (CV) in order to seek assistance in repealing the 
negative bias against him. 

 

12. Shortly after the Chaplain’s meeting with the AFOSC/CV and 
less than two weeks prior to his primary Lt Col board convening, 
the referral OPR and the LOA were mysteriously halted. Although 
the LOA and Referral OPR were dropped, the negative bias and 
prejudice from leaders within the 1st SOW continued. 

 

13. This resulted in a negatively influenced PRF being forwarded 
to the P0509B promotion board. Based on rumors and false 
accusations, the 1st SOW denied him a deployment and PCS 
decoration and forwarded a career ending OPR for the record. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an 18-page 
statement with 32 attachments, to include copies of the contested 
PRF and supplemental PRF, and various documents relating to his 
request. 


 

The 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 
major. The applicant has three non-selections to the grade of Lt 
Col. A review of the OPRs included in the applicant’s record, 
reflect overall ratings of “meets standards.” 

 

On 16-22 Dec 08, a CDI was conducted to investigate allegations 
of insubordination by the applicant: 

 

ALLEGATION 1. The applicant, at Balad AB, Iraq, on or about 
10 Dec 08, behaved himself with disrespect toward his superior 
commissioned officer, by saying to him “I’m not working here 
anymore,” and “I cannot work in J5,” then contemptuously turning 
from and leaving him, while he was talking to him. 

 

ALLEGATION 2. The applicant, at Balad AB, Iraq, on or about 
10 Dec 08, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by his 
superior commissioned officer, to immediately provide aircrew 
members with information concerning an upcoming video 
teleconference, an order which it was his duty to obey, failed to 
obey the same. 

 

The investigating officer concluded that the allegations were UNSUBSTANTIATED, and the appointing authority concurred with the 
investigating officer. 

 

In a previous case before the Board (BC-2010-04722), the 
applicant requested the Board correct his 1 Jul 09 OPR to reflect 
“SDE” (Senior Developmental Education) rather than “ISS” 
(Intermediate Service School); to award him the Air Force 
Commendation Medal (AFCM) for his service from 9 Jul 07 to 5 Jul 
09; and his corrected record be considered for promotion to the 
grade of Lt Col (0-5) by an SSB for the CY10A and CY11A Lt Col 
CSBs. The Board granted relief by removing the IDE statements 
from his OPR, awarded him the AFCM, and recommended his corrected 
record meet an SSB for the CY10A and CY11A Lt Col CSBs. The 
Board felt the IDE statements should altogether be removed, and 
based on supporting documentation submitted by other Lt Cols at 
the deployed location, which corroborated a contentious 
relationship between the applicant and his deployed supervisor, 
felt there may have been some bias against the applicant and that 
it appeared the applicant met the criteria for award of an AFCM. 
Based on the above changes to his record, the Board recommended 
his corrected record he be considered for promotion to the grade 
of Lt Col by SSB for CY10A and CY11A 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void 
his current PRF and replace it with a PRF generated by his 
current Senior Rater within his current command. DPSID states 
the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports 
Appeals Board (ERAB) on 10 Mar 06; however, the ERAB was not 
convinced there was an error/injustice and denied his appeal. 

 

DPSID states in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2401, Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, Paragraph A1.6.1, an 
evaluator on a PRF will not be substituted or bypassed simply 
because the original evaluator will not support an application to 
substitute the contested PRF. Due to the unwillingness by the 
Senior Rater to substitute a corrected PRF, the applicant appears 
to have created a “new” PRF, which he claims is endorsed by his 
new chain of command; however, no new Senior Rater is indicated 
on the form, nor is the PRF singed by anyone. This would make it 
an incomplete PRF, and as such can not be considered as a valid 
substitute of the original PRF. 

 

Although the applicant has provided a very lengthy and detailed 
case, DPSID does not believe that overturning the Senior Rater’s 
original input into the CSB would be the right or appropriate 
course of action. The Senior Rater is the person who is placed 
in the position by the Management Level, to ensure that the best 
judgment of the officer’s career and future promotion potential 
is rendered and delivered to the CSB. Additionally, this PRF was 
subject to the quality review process at the Management Level 
Review (MLR), in which other senior raters within the Major 
Command (MAJCOM) had an opportunity to review this PRF, review 
the Senior Rater’s decision and provide any suggestions to the 
PRF. The applicant should have pursued all avenues within the 
original MLR and exhausted these avenues prior to going to his 
current senior leadership in pursuit of a substituted PRF. His 
new Senior Rater would not be in any position to rewrite the PRF, 
as he/she was not in the position occupied when the original PRF 
was written. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration. DPSOO states based on the recommendation from 
DPSID to deny the applicant’s request to substitute the P0509B 
PRF, they recommend denial for SSB consideration. 

 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant provides a 21-page statement reiterating his 
original contentions; however, in his rebuttal he explains in 
detail the specific reasons why he feels an injustice and an 
error occurred. 


 

The applicant implicitly disagrees with the Air Force 
evaluations, and states, the leadership within his current 
command has generated a supplemental PRF and Validation Sheet as 
an example PRF to be substituted for the Board’s review and 
consideration. This unbiased example PRF drafted using the same 
records present for the P0509B promotion board, correctly and 
honestly reflects and encompasses his major accomplishments as an 
Air Force officer. The PRF portrays the leadership potential for 
promotion to the grade of Lt Col. 

 

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 warranting 
relief. In his appeal to this Board, the applicant alleges the 
contested PRF was an unfair representation of his record of 
performance. Specifically, the untrue allegations, which were 
“blindly” accepted by his Senior Rater and 1st SOW leadership, 
created a substantive change in his record of performance, which 
negatively impacted his promotion potential. We took note of the 
emails to the applicant from his Senior Rater who signed the 
original contested PRF who stated the “incident” in the AOR was 
not used to prejudice the applicant’s final PRF for the promotion 
board, also that the PRF the applicant received was a fair 
representation of his record of performance and standing among 
his peers, and that he did not believe there was any 
justification for rewriting the PRF. In a letter dated 12 Nov 
10, the board president states that he reviewed his record of 
performance prior to his primary board before and after his 
deployment and saw no evidence of any deliberate or sustantative 
misrepresentation on the final PRF prepared by his Senior Rater. 
Although the applicant has provided a lengthy and detailed case, 
the applicant has failed to provide substantial evidence proving 
the PRF is inaccurate as written. Therefore, we do not believe 
the applicant has met his burden of proving that he suffered an 
error or an injustice, or that we should overturn the Senior 
Rater’s original input to the promotion board. Therefore, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2011-00875 in Executive Session on 5 Nov 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2011-00875 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 20 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair