RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01076 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His date of rank (DOR) as a lieutenant colonel be changed from 
1 Oct 11 to 1 Jun 09. In the alternative, his record should be 
considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar 
Year 2008 (CY08) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board 
(CSB). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was improperly nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel 
by the Calendar Year 2008 (CY08) Lieutenant Colonel Central 
Selection Board (CSB) due to the following errors and omissions: 

 

1. His senior rater who rendered the Promotion Recommendation 
Form (PRF) only had limited knowledge of his duty performance, 
contrary to the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 8.1.4. 

 

2. His senior rater failed to inform his support staff that he 
was no longer affiliated with his Senior Rater identification 
(SRID) code in the Promotion Recommendation-In-Board Support 
Management (PRISM). 

 

3. His senior rater failed to provide him a copy of the PRF 
prior to the convening of the board in accordance with AFI 36-
2406 and AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective 
Continuation. 

 

4. The military support staff failed to inform his senior rater 
that he was a loss to his management level; and also failed to 
inform his gaining senior rater that he was a gain to his 
management level prior to the PRF cutoff. 

 

5. His gaining senior rater did not have an opportunity to 
consider him for a definitely promote (DP) recommendation or seek 
input from his previous senior rater contrary to the provisions 
of AFI 36-2406. 

 


6. His PRF contained incorrect information pertaining to his 
current assignment, organization, mission, duty title, and key 
duties. 

 

7. His Officer Selection Record (OSR) did not contain three of 
his Army Reserve officer performance reports (OPR), which were 
previously in his records. 

 

8. He believes Colonel ’s participation as a voting member on 
the contested board unfairly prejudiced his opportunity to 
compete for promotion based their previous professional 
relationship. 

 

9. The promotion board did not properly consider his performance 
in support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM in 
accordance with the Secretary of the Air Force’s memorandum of 
instruction (MOI). 

 

10. AFMC/JA’s failure to process his Meritorious Service Medal 
(MSM) award in a timely manner created a prejudicial anomaly in 
his records before the board. 

 

11. Incorrect advice from AFIT/SCI resulted in the omission of 
his advanced degree in law from his selection brief. 

 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to the applicant’s military personnel records, the 
applicant, a prior service member of the US Army Reserve, 
commenced his service in the Regular Air Force on 22 Jul 98. 

 

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to 
the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) by the CY08C lieutenant 
colonel CSB, which convened on 2 Dec 08. 

 

According to a copy of an email provided by the applicant, his 
senior rater provided him a copy of the contested PRF on 
12 Dec 08, after the contested CSB convened. 

 

The applicant was again considered and not selected for promotion 
to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) by the CY09C lieutenant 
colonel CSB, which convened on 2 Nov 09. 

 

On 31 Jul 10, the applicant resigned from the Regular Air Force 
and accepted commission in the Air Force Reserve, effective 
1 Aug 10. 

 


On 1 Oct 11, the applicant was promoted to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel, Reserve of the Air Force, effective and with 
a DOR of 1 Oct 11. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force (Exhibits B through D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. While the applicant contends his 
PRF contained errors and omissions by his rating chain, there is 
no evidence the PRF in question was not completed in accordance 
with the governing instruction, AFI 36-2406. Evaluation reports 
are considered accurate as written unless strong evidence to the 
contrary is provided to substantiate correcting or removing the 
report. The applicant has not provided any evidence to show the 
PRF was erroneous or unjust. To grant the applicant relief would 
be an injustice to all other eligible officers which were in 
similar situations. The applicant’s senior rater would have been 
in the best position to provide clarification as to how familiar 
he was with the applicant’s duty performance, and how much 
personal knowledge he possessed when he completed the contested 
PRF. 

 

The applicant contends his senior rater failed to provide a copy 
of the PRF to him prior to the start of the CSB and provides a 
copy of an email from his senior rater appears to support this 
assertion; however, AFI 36-2406, as well as the instructions the 
service member references in his case, specifically indicates 
that eligible officers should contact the senior rater if they 
have not received their PRF within 15 days of the CSB, yet there 
is no evidence the applicant tried to obtain a copy of the PRF 
prior to the convening of the CSB. Therefore, some 
responsibility must rest with the applicant for apparently 
failing to seek and obtain a copy of the PRF prior to the subject 
CSB. 

 

While the applicant also contends that the military personnel 
staffs supporting both the losing and the gaining senior raters 
failed to inform them and position him appropriate consideration 
for a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation, AFI 36-2406 has a 
provision which gives the gaining senior rater the ability to 
utilize one of his allocated "Definitely Promote" recommendations 
to an eligible candidate who appears on his Management 
Eligibility List (MEL) between the PRF Accounting Date and the 
PRF Cutoff Date. However, the applicant has not provided any 
evidence which would undermine the presumption that such 
communications took place. The requirement is for the gaining 
senior rater to “consider” members such as the applicant for a 
DP, but the only documentation existent is the PRF, as it exists 
in the applicant’s “As Met” record. The applicant’s PRF was 


signed by the losing senior rater and indicates the gaining 
senior rater either considered and took no action or he did not 
have an option to consider the applicant in accordance with the 
AFI 36-2406. 

 

The applicant further claims his PRF contained incorrect 
information about his current assignment, organization, mission, 
duty title, and key duties. However, the PRF contained the duty 
information as of the PRF accounting date, which in the 
applicant’s case was 4 Jul 08. As such, the senior rater who 
rendered the PRF could not comment on the applicant’s future 
duties as they would not be under his purview. The new duty 
information would be contained on the Officer Selection Brief 
(OSB) which is provided to the CSB for consideration along with 
the PRF and the OSR; therefore the PRF contained the correct 
information. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/PB recommends denial. The applicant contends that some of 
his Army Reserve OPRs that were previously in his official Air 
Force records were omitted for consideration by the CY08C CSB. A 
review of the applicant’s “As Met” records for the board confirms 
the three reports in question were not present; however, 11 other 
Army OPRs covering the 1988 through 1998 were present for the 
board. There is no evidence to show the three OPRs in question 
were ever received or present prior to the CY08C CSB. These 
reports have been updated into the Automated Records Management 
System (ARMS) and copies have been sent to the Air Force Reserve 
Personnel Center for inclusion into his Officer Selection Record 
(OSR). 

 

The applicant also contends that his previous relationship with a 
voting member of the board unfairly prejudiced his opportunity to 
compete for promotion based on negative issues from their 
previous relationship. DoD Instruction 1320.14, Commissioned 
Officer Promotion Program Procedures, states board members are to 
base their recommendation on the material in each officer's 
official military record, any information the Secretary of the 
Military Department concerned may provide to that board in 
accordance with the aforementioned instruction, and any 
information about his or her own record communicated to the board 
by individual eligible officers under regulations of the Military 
Department concerned. As such, the voting member was prohibited 
by the Secretary of Defense from using any biased information in 
consideration of the applicant or introducing such information to 
the board. Thus, other board members would have no personal 
knowledge of the relationship between the applicant and the board 
member. The applicant has not provided any evidence the board 
member used this alleged bias against him during his promotion 
board. 

 


The applicant further contends the CSB did not properly consider 
his deployments in support of OEF/OIF as instructed by Secretary 
of the Air Force. The Memorandum of Instructions (MOI) attached 
to the applicant's brief instructs the board members to recommend 
the best-qualified officers for promotion applying the whole 
person concept. Deployment data is provided in assessing 
individual officers. Thus the data the applicant provided 
pertaining to other officers has no bearing on this case as the 
board members were not instructed to give favorable consideration 
to selecting or to positively take note of members with 
deployments. 

 

The complete AFPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

The applicant contends the CY08C CSB did not properly consider 
his strong performance record on deployments for OEF/OIF. 
However, the applicant’s OSB that met the selection board 
described the two deployments he completed. In addition, his 
Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) and his Air Force 
Commendation Medal (AFCM) First Oak Leaf Cluster (1 OLC), which 
the applicant received for said deployments, were on file in his 
selection record. Additionally, the applicant provided a letter 
to the board with copies of his deployed Letters of Evaluation 
(LOEs). 

 

The applicant contends AFMC/JA's failure to process his MSM in a 
timely manner unfairly created a prejudicial anomaly in his 
record before the CY08C CSB. A review of the applicant’s as met 
record reflects his MSM (1OLC) was filed in the selection record 
on 26 Nov 08 and was on file for consideration by the CY08C CSB. 
The applicant believes the late filing of his medal left him with 
no alternative but to submit a letter to the board, which he 
believes could be misinterpreted negatively by the selection 
board. The applicant addressed the uncertainty of the inclusion 
of his MSM, deployment LOEs, Law degree and Army Achievement 
Medal in his letter to the board. However, the decision to write 
a letter to the board is solely that of the eligible officer. 

 

The applicant also contends that due to incorrect advice from 
AFIT his law degree was erroneously omitted from his selection 
brief. However, although the applicant completed the AFIT 
program, he had not been awarded his degree at the time the board 
convened and his Training Report (TR) for the AFIT program was 
included in his OSR for the board to review. Additionally, the 
applicant exercised his right to write a letter to the board 
which indicated that he had received his advanced degree in law. 

 

Although an officer may be qualified for promotion, he or she may 
not be the best qualified of those available for the limited 
number of promotion vacancies. Furthermore, to grant a direct 
promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have 
competitive records and also did not get promoted. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates his contentions and asserts that the 
documentation he provided with his application substantiates he 
was not properly considered for promotion by the CY08C CSB. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. While the 
applicant contends that a variety of factors precluded him from 
receiving full and fair consideration for promotion, after 
thoroughly reviewing of the applicant’s complete submission, his 
rebuttal response, and the evidence of record, we are not 
convinced by the evidence presented that the applicant was 
deprived of full and fair consideration for promotion. While the 
applicant contends that his senior rater, who prepared the 
contested performance recommendation form (PRF), had only limited 
knowledge of his duty performance, we are not convinced that said 
PRF is inaccurate or that it was not rendered in good faith. In 
point of fact, it appears as though there was a concerted effort 
on behalf of the applicant’s gaining and losing senior raters to 
ensure that his accomplishments and potential for promotion were 
thoroughly and accurately described in the contested PRF. In 
this respect, we note the applicant provided a supporting 
statement from the senior rater indicating that, contrary to the 
applicant’s own assertions, extensive communication between the 
staffs of the gaining and losing senior raters took place while 
the contested PRF was being crafted. The applicant also contends 
that he was not appropriately considered for a “Definitely 
Promote” (DP) recommendation due to the purported lack of 
coordination between the staffs of his gaining and losing senior 
rater; however, other than argument and conjecture, he has 
presented no evidence that would lead us to believe that he was 
not appropriately considered for such a recommendation. In this 
respect, we note the comments of AFPC/DPSIDEP indicating that 
according to AFI 36-2406 a gaining senior rater may utilize one 
of his allocated DP recommendations to an eligible candidate who 
appears on his Management Eligibility List (MEL) between the PRF 
Accounting Date and the PRF Cutoff Date; however, the applicant 
has not provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that 
he was not duly considered for a DP by his gaining senior rater, 
or that the ultimate decision to provide him with a “Promote” (P) 


recommendation was arbitrary or capricious. The applicant’s 
arguments in this regard are duly noted; however, the fact that 
he did not receive a DP recommendation from the gaining senior 
rater does not constitute evidence that he was not appropriately 
considered for such a recommendation. The applicant further 
claims that his PRF contained incorrect information regarding his 
current assignment, organization, mission, duty title, and key 
duties; however, the PRF in question appropriately described the 
duty information as of the PRF accounting date, which was 
4 Jul 08. As such, it would not be appropriate for the senior 
rater, who authored the PRF, to comment on the applicant’s future 
assignment. Additionally, the new duty information would be 
reflected on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) which is provided 
to the CSB for consideration along with the PRF and the officer 
selection record (OSR); therefore, in our view, the PRF contained 
the correct information. Ultimately, the applicant’s contentions 
related to the recommendation and content reflected on the 
contested PRF are only supported by argument and conjecture, and 
argument and conjecture do not constitute evidence of an error or 
injustice. As for the applicant’s contention that his OSR did 
not contain three of his Army Reserve officer performance 
reports, which he indicates were previously in his records, there 
is no evidence to show the three Army OPRs were ever received or 
present prior to the CY08C CSB. Nevertheless, even if we assume 
for the sake of argument that said reports were previously part 
of his records, the applicant has not presented any evidence to 
indicate that he was somehow precluded from making these reports 
a matter of record prior to the events under review, or that he 
did not have an opportunity to make the promotion board aware of 
their existence when he elected to write a letter to the board to 
bring other matters to their attention. In this respect, we note 
the applicant has provided copies of email traffic relative to 
his efforts to ensure that his pending meritorious service medal 
(MSM) was included in his OSR that makes it clear that he was 
aware of his responsibility to verify the contents of his OSR and 
take appropriate action to ensure his records were correct. 
While the applicant also argues that incorrect advice from AFIT 
resulted in the omission of his advanced degree in law from his 
OSR, we are not convinced that he is the victim of an error or 
injustice in this regard either. In this respect, we note the 
comments of AFPC/DPSOO indicating that while the applicant had 
yet to be awarded his AFIT degree as of the Board convening date, 
his training report (TR) for the AFIT program was included in his 
OSR and, in exercising his right to write a letter to the board, 
the applicant made the Board aware that he had received his 
advanced degree in law. Therefore, we are not convinced the 
applicant’s OSR did not appropriately reflect his accomplishments 
in this regard. While the applicant makes a variety of 
allegations with respect to the content of his record, we do not 
find his arguments or the documentation presented sufficient to 
conclude that his record contained any errors that were 
attributable Air Force officials, or that with due diligence on 
his part, were not discoverable during his apparently exhaustive 
review of his record in the months leading up to the convening of 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-01076 in Executive Session on 13 Dec 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 May 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/PB, dated 15 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 21 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair