RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:  				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-01358
							COUNSEL: NO
     							HEARING DESIRED: NO

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Retention Recommendation Form (RRF) rendered for the July 
Calendar Year 2010A (CY10A) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Selective 
Early Retirement Board (SERB) be substituted with the revised RRF 
provided by his Senior Rater/Management Level Review President.  

2.  His revised RRF be reconsidered so he can be given a fair 
opportunity for retention by the SERB.  

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His contested RRF omitted critical information that had it been 
present at the time of the SERB, it would have given him a better 
opportunity to be retained on active duty.  His status as a 
current and qualified HH-60G Instructor Pilot and Evaluator was 
purposely left out of the contested RRF.  Members of his chain of 
command attempted to include inputs to his RRF; however, their 
offer was declined by the Division Chief stating he had sufficient 
information to complete the form.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, revised RRF, current RRF, chain of command statements, 
electronic communications, Ninety-Day Waiver to Mandatory 
Retirement Date package, and a Flying History Report.  

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who was 
considered and not selected for retention by the CY10A Lt Col 
SERB.  He subsequently retired in the grade of Lt Col.  

The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant military 
service records are contained in the evaluations by the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits B and C.  

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
substitute his RRF with a reaccomplished RRF..  DPSID states that 
irrespective of how the applicant feels about the matter, it is up 
to the senior rater to determine what content is placed on the 
RRF.  In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2406, paragraph 
8.1.4.1.2., the senior rater must be knowledgeable of the ratee’s 
most recent performance.  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 on the officer’s duty performance.  Neither the 
senior rater nor the division chief, as the individual who 
provided input to the senior rater for the RRF, were under any 
obligation to include the applicant’s input.  Nevertheless, the 
applicant’s referenced inputs were in fact captured in prior 
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) which were evaluated along with 
his RRF at the SERB.  There is no evidence provided from the 
applicant or the senior rater that indicates the senior rater did 
not have knowledge of this input when the RRF was completed.  In 
addition, the applicant was provided a copy of the RRF prior to 
the SERB and had an opportunity to review and write a letter to 
the SERB to address any issues he was concerned with pertaining to 
his record or the RRF.  It appears the applicant made no attempt 
prior to the SERB convening to contact his senior rater to address 
any perceived discrepancies on the form, nor made any attempt to 
address the SERB with any concerns.  

DPSID indicates the applicant stated that he voluntarily chose not 
to accomplish Air War College (AWC) due to the fact that he was 
not seeking promotion beyond the rank of Lt Col.  He then asserts 
his belief that AWC completion was a discriminator at the SERB.  
The applicant provided an email conversation between him and his 
senior rater addressing the proposed RRF to be re-accomplished.  
The only justification he offered for why the RRF should be 
revised was to mention his one retainable skill of being an HH-60 
Instructor/Evaluator Pilot which appears to have been missing on 
the RRF.  The applicant did not provide any strong justification 
from his senior rater as to why the first RRF was unjust or 
inaccurate, or why this information should now be included on a 
revised RRF.  An evaluation report is considered to represent the 
rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  DPSID 
contends that once a report is accepted for file, only strong 
evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an 
individual’s record.  

It is DPSID’s opinion that the applicant has not substantiated 
that the contested RRF was not rendered in good faith by all 
evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial for SSB consideration based on 
DPSID’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request to 
substitute the RRF.  DPSOO states that in the instructions 
attached to the Officer Pre-selection Brief (OPB) that each 
eligible officer meeting the CY10A SERB was provided, it clearly 
states that officers have the option to write a letter to the 
board and address any matter of record concerning themselves that 
they believe is important to their consideration for retention 
selection.  However, the time to have submitted the letter 
clarifying the omission in his RRF was prior to convening of the 
original SERB, not after his non-selection for retention.  

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

He believes he has clearly established that his division chief 
treated his RRF differently than the others under his purview as 
evidenced by the statements from his branch chief and deputy 
division chief included with his appeal.  Although he did receive 
a copy of his RRF prior to the SERB convening, it was literally 
just a few days and he was told that he had neither recourse nor 
time to write a letter at that point.  He does not believe he 
would be pursuing a correction had it not been for the fact that 
he personally knows another Lt Col HH-60 Instructor Pilot in a 
very similar situation who chose not to pursue AWC and was 
retained by the same SERB that he met.  This fact was the primary 
motivation for him seeking a correction to his RRF.  

He is simply asking to have a fair chance to have his RRF replaced 
with what his senior rater would have said had he taken time to 
review it thoroughly or had he been given a fair shot by his 
division chief.  He believes he has provided the strong evidence 
needed to show his senior rater recognized his omission by signing 
a corrected RRF.  

The applicant complete rebuttal 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.  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.  We note the 
comments contained in the statements of support regarding a lack 
of opportunity to provide input for the applicant’s RRF; however, 
we do not find these statements sufficient to establish that the 
RRF was not properly prepared in accordance with governing Air 
Force policy.  The fact that officers considered by the retention 
board with similar backgrounds had different outcomes does not 
establish that the applicant did not receive fair and equitable 
consideration.  Although the applicant states he lacked sufficient 
time to submit a letter regarding the deficiencies in his RRF, we 
are not persuaded by the evidence submitted this was the case.  
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-01358 in Executive Session on 14 December 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      		,Panel Chair
      		, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01358:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 31 Mar 11, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Aug 11.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 13 Sep 11.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 11.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.




Panel Chair




6


4