AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00807 
COUNSEL:   
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His records be corrected to reflect the following: 
 
      a.  Amend  the  Developmental  Education  (DE)  section  of  his 
Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB)  to  show  completion  of  Air  Command 
and Staff College (ACSC) in-residence. 
 
      b.  Amend  his  P0506A  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  to 
reflect  a  “Definitely  Promote  (DP)”  recommendation,  or, 
alternatively,  order  his  senior  rater  (SR)  to  reassess  his  record 
for  consideration  of  a  “DP”  in  light  of  the  corrected  record  and 
submit his record for a new Management Level Review (MLR). 
 
      c.  Amend  the  deployment  history  section  of  his  OSB  to 
include six deployments not previously listed. 
 
      d.  Refer  his  corrected  record  to  a  Special  Selection  Board 
(SSB)  for  an  in-the-zone  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel (Lt Col).  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. His selection as a Professional Military Education candidate by 
the  CY01A  Major  Line  of  the  Air  Force  (LAF)  SSB  comes 
approximately  five  years  too  late.      Had  he  been  selected  by  his 
original  major’s  board  he  would  have  been  able  to  compete  for  an 
in-residence  seat  at  intermediate  service  school  (ISS)  until  he 
reached his primary zone for Lt Col.  He is well past his primary 
zone  for  Lt  Col  and  ineligible  to  attend  ISS  in-residence.    His 
current  ineligibility,  however,  is  no  fault  of  his  own  as  it  is 
due  to  an  error  in  his  record  at  the  time  of  his  original  major 
promotion  board  causing  him  to  be  passed-over  for  PME  candidacy.  
This error, of course, has now been corrected and resulted in his 
selection  for  PME  candidacy.    Since  he  performed  well  within 
standards  during  the  time  he  would  have  been  eligible  to  attend 
ISS, it is likely he would have been selected to attend ISS during 
his eligibility period had his record been correct at his original 
promotion  board.    Given  the  circumstances,  including  his  current 
time  in  the  service  and  his  ineligibility  to  now  attend  ISS,  the 
only  reasonable  way  to  correct  the  injustice  caused  by  the 
original  board  is  to  correct  his  military  record  to  reflect 
completion of ISS in-residence. 

 
2. The  Air  Force’s  PRF  and  “DP”  selection  process  violates 
statutory  and  regulatory  directives  by  unlawfully  interjecting 
third-party opinion into the promotion selection process.   
 
3. His  OSB  only  included  deployment  history  for  11  Oct  01  to 
28 Nov  01.    However,  his  records  indicate  six  additional 
deployments:  9  Dec  96  to  23  Jan  97;  24  Mar  97  to  11  May  97; 
13 Feb 98 to 20 Apr 98; 5 May 98 to 2 Jul 98; 8 Apr 99 to 3 Jun 
99; and 6 Oct 99 to 8 Dec 99.  His P0506A selection brief gives 
the false impression that he only deployed once in 2001, when in 
fact, he has deployed seven times.   
 
4.  He should be awarded a “DP” recommendation.  
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of  an 
eight  page  legal  brief,  SSB  results  memorandum,  extracted  Air 
Force CY06A promotion results, Virtual Military Personnel Flight 
(vMPF) Personal Information Sheet, and a memorandum.  
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On  1  Apr  12,  the  applicant  retired  from  the  Air  Force  in  the 
grade of major.  
 
He had seven non-selections to the grade of Lt Col by the CY06A; 
CY06C; CY07B; CY08B; CY09B; CY10A, and CY11A Lt Col CSBs.   
 
On  6  Aug  10,  AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2009-01405  directed  the 
applicant’s records be corrected to show that: 
 
  a.  His  Officer  Selection  Brief  prepared  for  consideration  by 
the  Calendar  Year  (CY06A)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central  Selection 
Board  (CSB),  be  amended  in  the  “Decorations”  section  “NR  AWD” 
column to reflect “4” rather than “3.” 
 
  b.  His  records  be  considered  by  Special  Selection  Board  for 
Intermediate  Developmental  Education  (IDE)  by  the  Calendar  Year 
2001A (CY01A) Major Line CSB.  
 
  c.  His  records,  to  include  the  corrected  OSB  and  the  Aerial 
Achievement Medal (AAM) (basic) citation for the period 15 Dec 96 
to 6 May 97, be considered for promotion to the grade of Lt Col 
by an SSB for the CY06A Lt Col CSB.  
 
 
 

2 

 

The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are 
contained  in  the  letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C through E.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPAPF  recommends  an  SSB  be  convened  and  the  applicant’s 
record  be  competed  for  an  in-residence  seat  against  officers 
actually selected for ISS during his eligibility window.   
 
The  applicant  did  not  complete  Air  Command  and  Staff  College 
(ACSC).    Currently  officers  designated  as  “selects”  from  the 
major’s  promotion  board  will  attend  PME  in-residence  (formerly 
ISS)  unless  quality  force  indicators  are  present  or  the  officer 
is deferred for operational reasons. 
 
The  governing  guidance  when  the  applicant  met  his  major’s 
promotion  board  was  as  follows:    “to  be  eligible  to  attend  ISS, 
majors  and  major  selects  must  be  selected  as  an  ISS  “candidate” 
or be nominated by their management level (ML) as a non-candidate 
to  compete  at  the  annual  AFPC  ISS  Central  Board.    ISS  candidacy 
is determined at the major’s promotion board.  Once designated as 
a “candidate”, the officer can compete for ISS annually until no 
longer eligible.  Candidates are no longer eligible once they are 
in  their  primary  zone  for  Lt  Col.    The  eligibility  window  for 
majors and major selects is at least three years. 
 
It would be unfair to utilize current Air Force Instruction (AFI) 
rule  sets  for  school  selection  to  correct  any  past  error  in  the 
applicant’s  record  or  selection  for  school.    Once  his  record  is 
fixed, it should be competed against a sampling of ISS attendees 
in  the  same  eligibility  window  as  the  applicant  via  a  SSB.  
Although the applicant was awarded “select” status by a previous 
SSB,  selection  to  school  was  not  a  guarantee  using  the 
aforementioned  ISS  rule  sets  that  were  in  place  during  his 
eligibility window.  He would have had to compete for a seat each 
year he was eligible using rules in place in 2002. 
 
If selected for IDE via this process, AFPC/DPAPFE can update his 
record to reflect he was selected for in-residence developmental 
education,  but  due  to  matters  outside  his  control,  he  was  not 
able  to  attend.    Otherwise,  due  to  the  applicant  not  actually 
completing  ACSC  in-residence,  AFPC/DPAPFE  will  not  update  his 
record  to  reflect  such  completion,  unless  a  SSB  selects  him  to 
attend school (not just candidacy).   
 
The complete DPAPF evaluation is at Exhibit C.  
 
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
the promotion recommendation on the contested PRF. 
 

3 

 

The  applicant  did  not  file  an  appeal  through  the  Evaluation 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  
 
The  applicant  received  a  “Promote”  recommendation  on  the 
contested  PRF  and  contends  it  was  unjust.    Specifically,  he 
alleges  that  the  non-selection  for  PME  was  driven  by  a  missing 
decoration  that,  had  it  been  in  his  record,  it  would  have  made 
the  difference  in  successful  selection  for  in-residence  PME  and 
furthermore, the in-residence PME completion could have resulted 
in  a  “DP”  recommendation  on  the  PRF,  which  then  could  have 
ultimately  resulted  in  being  selected  to  the  grade  of  Lt  Col  at 
the P0506A CSB.   
 
DPSID  states  the  applicant  had  ample  time  and  opportunity  prior 
to and after the subject MLR to correct his decoration record and 
address  the  lack  of  in-residence  school  completion;  and  more 
importantly,  address  these  concerns  with  the  SR.    The  applicant 
is only now, once his enforced mandatory date of separation from 
the  Air  Force  is  drawing  near,  attempting  to  rectify  this 
perceived error.   
 
The  applicant  has  not  provided  any  proposed  substitute  PRF  and 
accompanying  justification  memorandum  from  the  SR  and  MLR  Board 
President,  justifying  the  error/injustice  and  the  need  for 
correction  of  the  existing  valid  PRF.    In  accordance  with  (IAW) 
AFI  36-2401,  it  states:  changing  the  overall  recommendation 
(section  IX)  to  a  “DP”  rating  must  be  fully  justified  and 
requires the concurrence of both the SR and MLR President.   
 
Additionally,  DPSID  contends  the  SR  completed  the  existing  PRF 
IAW  all  Air  Force  policies  and  procedures  and  was  within  the 
regulatory  Air  Force  requirements.    Although  the  applicant  may 
feel that this was an injustice, there were avenues he could have 
taken  at  the  appropriate  timeframe  to  ensure  that  any  relevant 
issues were addressed and taken care of in advance of the subject 
CSB in which he was not selected for promotion.  Therefore, DPSID 
contends that to arbitrarily change the promotion recommendation 
at  this  late  date  would  be  an  injustice  to  other  commissioned 
officers  which  have  properly  screened  their  own  records  in  a 
timely  manner,  corrected  any  discrepancies  and  earned  the 
appropriate  promotion  recommendation  prior  to  their  own 
applicable CSBs. 
 
An  evaluation  report  is  considered  to  represent  the  rating 
chain’s  best  judgment  at  the  time  it  is  rendered  based  on  all 
known  or  provided  performance  information.    Once  a  report  is 
accepted  for  file  only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary  warrants 
correction or removal from an individual’s record.   
 
The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  applicant.    He  has  not 
substantiated the contested PRF was not rendered in good faith by 
the  SR  based  on  knowledge  available  at  the  time  and  has  not 

4 

 

proven  that  substitution  of  the  contested  PRF  for  the  reason 
provided is warranted or justified.   
 
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
AFPC/DPSOO  does  not  provide  a  recommendation  regarding  the 
applicant’s  request  to  amend  the  deployment  history  section  on 
his OSB to include six additional deployments.   
 
The  Military  Personnel  Flight  Memorandum  (MPFM),  dated 
11 Oct 05 states that only Type 1 Contingency/rotational or Type 
2 Exercise  Deployments  of  45  days  or  more  and  with  a  start  date 
of 11 Sep 01 or later will be displayed in the deployment history 
section  of  the  OSB.    As  such,  the  applicant’s  six  additional 
deployments  from  1996  to  1999  do  not  qualify  to  be  reflected  on 
the OSB for the promotion selection process.   
 
The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
AFPC/JA  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  first  three 
requests:  
 
JA states as noted by AFPC/DPAPF there is no process in place to 
“do  over”  an  in-residence  service  school  selection.    Even  if 
there  were,  the  passage  of  time  has  resulted  in  the  destruction 
of  records  that  would  likely  have  been  used.    Notwithstanding, 
they do not believe the applicant has been unfairly prejudiced by 
the inability of the Air Force to now conduct a new consideration 
for  in-residence  service  school  –  or  to  just  award  him  an  ISS 
completion certificate.  The DPSOO and DPAPF advisories have made 
clear that selection for service school – even in the face of a 
strong  endorsement  –  was  not  a  sure  thing.    On  the  contrary, 
DPAPF points out that during the applicant’s eligibility window, 
there  was  no  guarantee  that  an  officer  who  was  a  candidate  for 
school  would  ultimately  be  selected  to  attend  school  in-
residence.   
 
Counsel’s  belief  the  applicant  was  a  sure  bet  to  be  selected  is 
just  that  –  a  belief-  nothing  more  than  speculation,  with  no 
evidence  to  support  it.    Moreover,  even  if  the  applicant  were 
somehow  now  selected,  he  could  not  attend  the  service  school.  
Under  these  circumstances  it  would  constitute  an  undeserved 
windfall  to  give  the  applicant  credit  in  his  record  for 
completing an in-residence service school that he never attended, 
let  alone  completed.    Even  if  the  applicant  had  completed  in-
residence  ISS,  it  would  not  have  guaranteed  promotion  as  it 
constituted  just  one  of  multiple  factors  utilized  in  the  whole 
person concept. 
 
In his next assignment of error, applicant’s counsel argues that 
six  deployments  were  improperly  left  off  his  selection  brief.  
However,  DPSOO  has  properly  advised  such  deployments  did  not 
qualify to be reflected on the selection board brief. 
 

5 

 

The  applicant’s  attorney  contends  that  PRFs  represent  command 
level opinions as to which officers should be promoted, which are 
not  authorized  by  either  governing  statues  or  DoD  regulations.  
In  essence,  he  states  that  the  Air  Force’s  promotion 
recommendation  process  is  an  ultra  vires  procedure  that 
unlawfully  interjects  third-party  opinion  into  the  promotion 
process  in  direct  contradiction  to  Congress’  clear  intent,  thus 
unlawfully usurping the statutory duty of the promotion board to 
review, weigh and rank each officer’s record and determine who is 
best qualified.   
 
The  information  that  may  be  provided  to  members  of  a  promotion 
selection  board  is  governed  by  statute,  DoD  and  Air  Force 
instruction.    Section  615  of  Title  10,  United  States  Code 
(U.S.C.),  sets  out  the  statutory  guidance  for  information  that 
may be furnished to selection boards.   
 
The Air Force regulation that implements these provisions of DODI 
1320.14  is  AFI  36-2501,  Officer  Promotions  and  Selective 
Continuation.    Paragraph  2.11  outlines  what  information  may  be 
provided to an officer promotion selection board.  That paragraph 
includes  the  Officer  Selection  Record,  outlined  in  AFI  36-2608, 
Military  Personnel  Records  System,  of  each  eligible  officer, 
including  the  OSB.    AFI  36-2608,  paragraph  2.11.1.,  table  A2.1, 
Management of Records Document, rule 85, lists the Air Force Form 
709,  Promotion  Recommendation,  as  a  document  to  be  filed  in  the 
officer’s  OSR.    Consequently,  contrary  to  applicant’s  counsel’s 
unsupported  assertion,  inclusion  of  the  PRF  in  an  officer’s 
selection record is fully authorized under the governing statute 
(10  U.S.C.  615),  DoD  instruction  (DODI  1320.14),  and  Air  Force 
instructions  (AFI  36-2501  and  36-2608).    Moreover,  such 
information  is  used  to  assist  officer  selection  boards  in  their 
statutory duties, and in no ways does it usurp those duties.   
 
Having  argued  that  the  Air  Force’s  promotion  recommendation 
process  and  the  use  of  the  “DP”  is  unlawful,  the  applicant’s 
counsel  then  turns  around  and  requests  that  applicant  now  be 
awarded  a  “DP.”    Notwithstanding  the  inconsistency  of  such  an 
argument  in  light  of  his  previous  contention,  the  applicant’s 
counsel  essentially  relies  on  a  distorted  “logic”  to  establish 
his  conclusion.    It  depends  entirely  upon  the  use  of  pure 
speculation  as  a  basis  to  engage  in  further  speculation,  rather 
than  relying  on  statements  of  fact  supported  by  a  preponderance 
of  evidence.    Counsel  says  that  “given  the  importance  of  in-
residence PME it stands to reason that a substantial percentage, 
if  not  the  vast  majority,  of  those  with  in-residence  PME  were 
awarded  “DPs”  by  their  senior  raters  or  MLRs.    It  can  thus  be 
concluded  that  the  applicant’s  corrected  PME  status  would 
materially influence the senior rater’s decision to award a “DP” 
recommendation.”  He then concludes that the applicant’s in-the-
zone  Lt  Col  PRF  should  be  corrected  to  reflect  a  “DP” 
recommendation  and  that  his  corrected  record  should  then  be  put 
before a new Lt Col SSB.  As noted, this entire request is based 
on  unsupported  conjecture  and  what  counsel  believes  “stands  to 

6 

 

reason.”    Not  only  has  the  applicant’s  counsel  failed  to 
establish a factual basis to change applicant’s record to reflect 
completion  of  an  ISS  course  he  never  took,  he  then  uses  this 
presumptive  “ACSC”  completion”  as  the  sole  basis  to  argue  that 
the applicant should be awarded a “DP” recommendation.   
 
The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  through  counsel  objects  to  certain  comments 
contained  in  the  advisory  opinion  of  AFPC/DPSID,  as  well  as  the 
timeliness  of  the  letter  forwarding  this  and  other  advisory 
opinion. 
 
Counsel states the applicant submitted his application within one 
year of the supplemental board decision that established his PME 
candidacy.   
 
The MLR met in late 2005 and the original selection board met in 
Mar  2006.    The  missing  decoration,  however,  was  not  discovered 
until  2009,  when  he  was  notified  by  AFPC  that  his  first  Aerial 
Achievement  Medal  (AAM)  neither  was  presented  to  him  nor 
reflected  in  his  record.    This  decoration  was  a  subject  of  the 
applicant’s prior and timely request to this Board for correction 
of  his  record  to  include  this  decoration  (BC-2009-01405).    This 
Board  granted  that  request  on  6  Aug  10,  and  ordered  a 
supplemental board, the results of which were not released until 
5 Aug 11. 
 
AFPC/DPSID  states  that  “the  applicant  is  only  now,  once  his 
enforced  Mandatory  Date  of  Separation  of  service  from  the  Air 
Force  is  drawing  near,  attempting  to  rectify  this  perceived 
error.”  This statement not only ignores the actual facts of the 
applicant’s  case,  but  relies  on  no  more  than  mere  conjecture  in 
an  attempt  to  assign  a  motivation  to  the  applicant’s  pursuit  of 
this  application.    In  fact,  the  applicant  was  voluntarily 
extended  to  serve  23  years,  but  voluntarily  decided  to  retire 
upon reaching 20 years of service.   
 
Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely not timely filed; however it is in 
the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

7 

 

 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or  injustice  regarding  the 
applicant’s  request  to  amend  the  deployment  history  section  of 
his Officer Selection Brief (OSB).  As pointed out by DPSOO, in 
accordance  with  MPFM  05-39,  dated  11  Oct  05,  only  Type 
1 Contingency/rotational  or  Type  2  Exercise  Deployments  of 
45 days or more and with a start date of 11 Sep 01 or later will 
be  displayed  in  the  deployment  history  section  of  the  OSB.  
Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and  recommendation  of 
AFPC/DPSOO  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or  injustice.    In  view  of  the  above  and  in  the  absence  of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
this portion of the relief sought in this application.   
 
4.  Notwithstanding  the  above,  sufficient  relevant  evidence  has 
been  presented  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or 
injustice  to  warrant  partial  relief  regarding  the  applicant’s 
request  to  amend  the  Development  Education  (DE)  section  of  his 
Officer Selection Brief (OSB).  While the applicant has requested 
that the DE section of his OSB be amended to show completion of 
ACSC in-residence, and DPAPF recommends his record compete for an 
in-residence  seat  against  officers  selected  for  ISS  during  his 
eligibility  window,  we  believe  it  would  more  appropriate  to 
correct his record to show that he was selected for in-residence 
PME and could not attend due to circumstances beyond his control.  
With  respect  to  his  request  to  amend  his  PRF,  since  we  are 
recommending  his  OSB  be  changed,  we  believe  reassessing  the 
applicant’s records for a “DP” recommendation and submitting it 
to a new Management Level Review (MLR) is warranted.  Therefore, 
in the interest of justice we recommend his record be corrected 
as indicated below.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 
 
a.  The  Developmental  Education  section  of  his  Officer 
 
Selection Brief be corrected to show that he was selected for in-
residence  PME  but  could  not  attend  due  to  circumstances  beyond 
his control. 
 
 
b.  His  records  be  reassessed  by  the  original  Senior  Rater 
for a “Definitely Promote” recommendation and if determined to be 
appropriate,  submitted  to  the  original  Management  Level  Review 
for concurrence.   
 
It  is  further  directed  that  the  corrected  record  be  considered 
for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special 

8 

 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPF, dated 27 Mar 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 May 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dates 14 Jun 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Jul 12  
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jul 12. 
Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 
 
 
 

  

 
           

Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  2006A  (CY06A) 
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00807 in Executive Session on 24 Oct 12 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00807 was considered.  
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

  
  
  

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
Panel Chair  

 

9