RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04342
	COUNSEL:  NONE
                    	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), for the Calendar Year 
2012A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CY12A Lt Col 
CSB) be voided and removed from his record and be granted 
Supplemental Selection Board (SSB) consideration.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was a failure to provide any key performance factors from 
his entire career in Section IV of his PRF.  In addition, his 
Duty Title is incorrect as written and his Key Duties, Tasks, 
and Responsibilities do not correlate with the Duty Title.  He 
was not afforded the opportunity to review his PRF prior to the 
promotion board.  The combination of inaccuracies and the lack 
of highlights from his accomplishments in Section IV of the PRF 
ended any chances of promotion.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and, copies of the contested PRF, Officer Performance 
Reports (OPRs), Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Memorandum of 
Instructions, and a Statement of Service.  

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 involuntarily discharged effective 30 November 2012 in the 
grade of major (O-4) for non-continuation.  

On 4 June 2007, pursuant to a Command-Directed Investigation 
(CDI), the Investigating Officer substantiated allegations that 
the applicant committed adultery, paid for sex with a 
prostitute, and made a false official statement, resulting in 
conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman.  As a result, 
the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), an 
Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and a referral Officer 
Performance Report (OPR).  In addition, his Senior Rater 
recommended a “Do Not Promote This Board” PRF for the applicant 
to be considered at the CY12A Lt Col CSB.  

On 20 September 2012, the Board considered and denied the 
applicant’s request to void and remove his referral Officer 
Performance Report, closing 28 April 2007; and, to receive SSB 
consideration for promotion to Lt Col.  

For an accounting of the Board’s earlier decision, see the 
Record of Proceedings at Exhibit B.

On 12 February 2013, the applicant’s current appeal was 
administratively closed due to multiple applications being 
submitted.  His appeal was subsequently reopened on 29 April 
2013.  

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluation from 
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states the applicant did 
not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board 
(ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, dated 
10 March 2006.  

DPSID indicates that in the absence of any contradictory 
evidence, the Senior Rater used the whole person factors in 
evaluating the applicant in accordance with AFI 36-2406.  Whole 
person factors include job performance, leadership, professional 
competence, breadth and depth of experience, job responsibility, 
academic and professional military education, specific 
achievements, and the officer’s future promotion potential.  
Ultimately, it is the Senior Rater’s discretion as to what is 
documented on the PRF.  In addition to the PRF, the Officer 
Selection Record (OSR) also includes a complete Officer Record 
of Performance, to include all OPRs and any earned decorations 
over the officer’s entire career.  The PRF is a tool to point 
promotion board members to the documented record to review 
accomplishments and impacts about an officer’s performance.  It 
is a direct communication from the Senior Rater to the CSB on an 
officer’s future promotion potential and is considered to be the 
senior rater’s best judgment at the time it is completed, based 
on all the known or provided performance information.  However, 
this is just a recommendation from the senior Rater and the CSB 
had available the applicant’s entire selection record for review 
as the accomplishments he references in his appeal were reported 
in various OPRs and earned decorations spanning his career..  

The applicant claims he was not given the opportunity to review 
the PRF prior to the CSB; however, he has not provided 
documentation in which he attempted to contact the senior rater 
to obtain a copy of the PRF.  In accordance with AFI 36-2406, 
Paragraph 8.1.4.5.1 the ratee “contacts the senior rater if 
he/she has not received a copy of his/her PRF not later than 15 
days prior to CSB.”  Prior to the CSB, the applicant had the 
opportunity to discuss any inaccuracies, omissions, or errors 
pertaining to his PRF.  As such, the applicant had the 
opportunity to correspond with the CSB pertaining to the PRF and 
any other perceived errors in his record.  

The applicant’s contends that his Duty Title on the PRF is 
incorrect as written and the Key Duties, Tasks, and 
Responsibilities do not correlate with the Duty Title.  However, 
AFI 36-2406, Table 8.1, Rule 10 indicates: “Enter the approved 
duty title as reflected in the Personnel Data System.”  Because 
of this rule, the proper duty title was, in fact, used on the 
PRF as it is the Duty Title reflected in the Military Personnel 
Data System (MilPDS).  

Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the 
contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s 
record and the burden of proof is on the applicant.  The 
applicant has not substantiated the contested PRF was not 
rendered in good faith by the senior rater based on the 
knowledge available at the time and, has not proven that removal 
of the contested PRF for the reasons provided, is warranted or 
justified.  He has provided insufficient evidence to corroborate 
he suffered an injustice or a material error in the preparation 
of the contested PRF.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 August 2013, for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received no 
response.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 an injustice.  We took 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the merits of the case; however, we do not find the evidence 
provided sufficient to override the rationale provided by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility.  Therefore, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice.  The applicant did not provide any substantiating 
evidence to prove his assertions that the PRF was rendered 
inaccurately or unjustly.  Therefore, 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04342 in Executive Session on 6 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                          , Chair
	                          , Member
	                          , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04342:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 12, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 21 Jul 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.