AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01082 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
She be granted Special Board (SB) consideration for promotion to 
the grade of major by the Calendar Year 2012 (CY12) Major Line 
and Non-Line Position Vacancy (PV) Promotion Selection Board. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She and her supervisor were informed on numerous occasions by the 
Air  Reserve  Personnel  Center  (ARPC)  that  her  unit  reserve 
coordinator  (URC)  would  be  allowed  to  submit  her  Promotion 
Recommendation Form (PRF) to the CY12A PV board up until the day 
the board met, which was 23-27 Jan 12.  The error was not having 
her records meet this board, and the injustice is the emotional 
aspect with not meeting the board with her peers and year group.  
 
The PRFs were due to ARPC/DPBPP on 9 Dec 11.  The reason her PRF 
was submitted late was beyond her control due to a short notice 
vacancy  that  she  was  requested  to  fill  to  assist  the  Chairman, 
Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 2011 Holiday season.   
 
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
PRF for the CY12A Board, a Personal Data SURF, a Sponsor Welcome 
email, Letters to AFRC explaining the late submission of her PRF, 
email  correspondence  from  ARPC/DPBPP,  her  Joint  Service 
Achievement Medal Certificate, a Timeline of Facts and Dates, and 
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs). 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
Information  extracted  from  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System 
(MilPDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving in the 
Air  Force  Reserve  in  the  grade  of  captain,  having  assumed  that 
grade effective 20 Dec 06.   
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 

Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts 
in this Record of Proceedings. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
ARPC/DPB  recommends  denial.    DPB  states,  the  applicant  did  not 
meet the requirement of occupying the nominated position on the 
PRF  submission  date,  or  before  the  board  convened.    While  the 
late submission was beyond the applicant’s control, she was still 
unable  to  meet  the  requirements  for  nomination  to  establish 
eligibility for promotion consideration.  Consideration by a PV 
board is not an entitlement guaranteed under law.  It is solely a 
nominative  process  with  specific  requirements  that  must  be  met 
prior  to  nomination  and  consideration  by  a  board.    All  USAFR 
officers  considered  by  a  PV  board  must  meet  the  requirements 
prior  to  submission  of  the  nomination  by  their  senior  rater.  
Every  officer  considered  by  the  CY12  PV  board  met  all  of  the 
requirements.    The  promotion  process  could  be  considered 
inequitable if the applicant is afforded special consideration. 
 
AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation, and Selective Early 
Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, paragraph 2.7, details 
the  requirements  for  nomination  of  an  officer  for  PV 
consideration.  Specifically, paragraph 2.7.2., requires that an 
officer  occupy  or  be  reassigned  to  the  position  for  which 
nominated  at  the  time  of  the  PRF  submission.    The  PRF  must  be 
received by ARPC/DPBPE not later than (NLT) 45 days prior to the 
convening  of  the  promotion  board  per  AFI  36-2406,  Officer  and 
Enlisted  Evaluation  Systems,  paragraph  8.2.1.2.    For  the 
CY12 board,  the  PRF  submission/suspense  date  was  9  Dec  11.  
ARPCM, 11-32, 2 Sep 11, announced the requirements and milestones 
for  the  Jan  12  Board.    It  specifically  stated  that  PRFs 
nominating officers for PV promotion were due to ARPC on 9 Dec 
11. 
 
If  a  PRF  nominating  an  officer  is  not  received  by  the  PRF 
suspense date, the organization wishing to nominate the officer 
can request from ARPC/DPB, supplemental consideration (via an SB) 
for the officer.  The organization must send the PRF, a letter 
from the senior rater explaining the reasons for missing the PRF 
suspense date, specific information showing the officer occupied 
the  position  for  which  nominated,  and  that  the  position  was 
funded  for  a  year  after  the  board  convened.    ARPC/DPB  will 
evaluate  the  request  for  SB,  and  if  the  circumstances  do  not 
violate  Air  Force  policies  the  officer  can  be  offered  SB 
consideration. 
 
On  24  Jan  12,  an  email  was  received  from  the  applicant  which 
contained  a  PRF,  a  SURF  showing  she  occupied  the  nominated 
position, and a letter from her senior rater explaining why the 
PRF was not submitted on time.  The letter stated the applicant’s 
new  organization  could  not  nominate  her  for  PV  because  she  was 
 
 

2

still working for a different organization.  It also stated she 
could not leave that assignment until Jan 12.  After researching 
the  applicant’s  situation  it  was  determined  she  arrived  at  her 
new duty station on 6 Jan 12, and was assigned to the nominated 
position  on  24  Jan  12,  the  day  after  the  PV  promotion  board 
convened.    Of  note:    A  transaction  occurred  in  MilPDS  that 
appeared  to  backdate  the  date  of  assignment  to  the  position  to 
1 Dec 11. 
 
DPB cannot offer the applicant SB consideration, as she did not 
occupy  the  nominated  billet  on  the  PRF  suspense  date,  and  in 
fact,  did  not  occupy  the  position  until  24  Jan  12,  which  was 
after the promotion board convened. 
 
The complete DPB evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The Memorandum to the AFBCMR is either a false official statement 
or the information provided to the Board is incorrect.   
 
In reference to #3(b), the letter states the PRF submission was 
9 Dec 11.  Please note the email chain in which her supervisor 
received confirmation from ARPC that the PRF could be submitted 
to  meet  the  board.    As  a  result  of  the  conversation  with  her 
supervisor and ARPC the PRF was submitted on 13 Jan 12, for the 
23 Jan 12 PV board.  In the same email, she raised the question 
to  her  supervisor  that  nothing  on  the  ARPC  website  states  the 
requirements for the PRF PV submission. 
 
In  reference  to  #3(c),  everything  listed  in  the  paragraph  was 
provided to ARPC/DPB in addition to a letter from the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Protocol Office explaining the unusual 
circumstances as to why the PRF was submitted late. 
 
In  reference  to  #3(d),  her  AF  IMT  1288,  Application  for  Ready 
Reserve  Assignment,  clearly  indicates  she  was  in  the  position 
vacancy  well  before  the  board  convened  on  23  Jan  12,  not  the 
24 Jan 12 date stated in the ARPC memorandum.  She used the 6 Jan 
12 date on her AF IMT 1288 because that is when all the paperwork 
was completed; it was not the actual date of her assigned duty.  
The  official  date  of  assigned  duty  was  1  Dec  11,  which  is 
indicated on her SURF and in MilPDS.  This was corrected from the 
Det 11 Assignments after the error was identified. 
 
In reference to #3(e), the AF IMT 1288 and SURF clearly indicate 
she was in the position vacancy before the board convened.  She 
is  on  orders  at  ARPC  and  has  been  informed  that  the  advisory 
writer  has  been  removed  from  her  duty  position  by  the  ARPC/DPB 
Administrative Assistant. 
 

 
 

3

She was nominated for the PV promotion, her outgoing and incoming 
organization signed letters on her behalf describing the unusual 
circumstances,  and  the  late  submission  was  out  of  her  control.  
However,  the  advisory  states  that  she  was  not  in  the  position 
before the board convened and this is NOT TRUE.   
 
The  applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit D. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.    After 
thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s 
complete  submission,  we  do  not  find  the  evidence  presented 
sufficiently persuasive to recommend Special Board consideration.  
While  the  applicant’s  disagreement  with  the  Air  Force  advisory 
opinion  is  noted,  the  evidence  of  record  does  not  support  her 
contention that she occupied the billet on the PRF suspense date.  
She  also  has  not  provided  any  evidence  that  would  warrant  an 
exception  to  policy.    Based  on  the  current  evidence,  we  cannot 
conclude that the applicant has been treated any differently than 
other  officers  similarly  situated  and  we  do  not  find  it  in  the 
interest of justice to grant the requested relief.  As such, we 
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office 
of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the  basis 
for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain her burden 
of  establishing  that  she  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an 
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 issue 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. 
 
 

4

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-01082  in  Executive  Session  on  5  Nov  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 2 Mar 12 & 12 Oct 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 23 Apr 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 12, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

5