AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01396 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  His  AF  Form  709,  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF), 
rendered for the P0409C Major Central Selection Board (CSB), be 
substituted with a reaccomplished PRF.  
 
2.  His  records,  to  include  a  reaccomplished  PRF,  be  considered 
for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the P0409C 
CSB.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
His  Junior  Company  Grade  Officer  (CGO)  Warrior  of  the  Quarter 
award was unintentionally omitted by his senior rater (SR) while 
preparing  his  PRF  for  the  P0409C  Major  CSB,  and  was  not 
considered by the P0409C CSB.   
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of the 
contested and revised PRF, memoranda and other documentation in 
support of his application.  
 
The  revised  PRF  mentions  his  award  in  Section  IV,  line  3.    He 
provided a letter of justification from his SR who signed the PRF 
stating that he won an award but it was not received until after 
he arrived at his new duty station. 

 The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
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.  
 
Per AFPC/PBX, email dated 11 Jan 13, the applicant was considered 
for the P0409C and P0410D Majors CSB that convened on 14 May 12 
and  10  Sep  12  respectively;  however  he  was  non-selected  for 
promotion. 
 
 
 

 

1
 

 
The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are 
contained  in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits B thru C.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to 
substitute his contested PRF with the revised PRF.  DPSID states 
the applicant has not demonstrated there was an actual material 
error in the preparation of his contested PRF.   
 
A careful review of the applicant’s evaluation history shows no 
mention  of  this  award  present  in  any  prior  Officer  Performance 
Report  (OPR);  however,  the  award’s  inclusive  period  is  between 
Jan to Mar 05.  The applicant had more than ample time to make 
this  award  known  to  his  rating  chain  for  inclusion  in  the 
subject OPR, either during the inclusive period in which it was 
awarded or for inclusion in a future OPR.  The applicant made no 
mention  in  his  request  that  he  attempted  to  do  so.    DPSID 
concludes that either he deemed it unworthy of mentioning to his 
rating chain since receipt of the award or he did address this 
issue  with  the  rating  chain  and  they  chose  not  to  include  the 
award in subsequent OPRs or PRFs, as it is the decision of the 
evaluators to determine the content of evaluations.  
 
DPSID states the applicant is only now, after not being selected 
to  the  next  higher  grade  and  departure  from  active  duty, 
requesting what appears to be low-level stratification be added 
for  consideration.    In  addition,  if  the  applicant  felt  this 
award was of high value to his record, he had the opportunity to 
communicate with the CSB pertaining to this award.  However, the 
applicant  waited  an  additional  three  years,  and  after  he  was 
already separated to challenge the fact this award was never in 
his record.   
 
While  it  may  appear  that  his  SR  was  not  aware  of  the 
accomplishment when she signed the contested PRF, the applicant 
had  the  opportunity  to  review  the  PRF  approximately  30  days 
prior to the promotion board and did not raise the issue to her. 
It  appears  the  applicant  is  utilizing  this  award  to  justify  a 
change in the PRF and thereby obtain SSB consideration, although 
long after the fact and after his separation from active duty.   
 
DPSID  states  that  to  grant  the  applicant’s  request  would  be  an 
injustice  to  all  other  Air  Force  officers  who  ensure  their 
records are accurate and complete prior to a promotion board. 
 
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration.  DPSOO states the applicant has not demonstrated 
 
 

2

 

he 

been 

objectively 

While 

considered. 

there  was  an  actual  material  error  in  the  preparation  of  his 
contested PRF. 
 
DPSOO  states  the  applicant  has  two  nonselections  for  promotion 
to the grade of major by the P0409C and P0410D Major CSBs.  In a 
previous appeal, the applicant requested the opportunity to write 
a  letter  to  the  board  requesting  correction  of  his  Officer 
Selection  Brief  (OSB)  and  SSB  consideration  for  the  P0409C  and 
P0410D  Majors  CSBs.    AFPC/DPSOO  approved  the  request  and  he  was 
considered for the P0409C Majors CSB at the SSB that convened on 
14  May  12;  however,  the  results  have  not  yet  been  released.  
While  not  confirmed,  DPSOO  believes  the  applicant  will  be 
considered  for  the  P0410D  Majors  CSB  at  the  SSB  convening  on 
10 Sep 12.   
 
The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
By letter dated 17 Jul 12, the applicant believes his case has 
not 
accepts 
responsibility  for  not  submitting  the  Charleston  award  sooner, 
his  supervisors  have  encouraged  him  to  pursue  the  appeal 
process, and his work and records are strong.  Every conference, 
mentoring  session,  and  base-level  Military  Personnel  Flight 
(MPF)  expert  left  him  with  a  clear  message  “do  a  good  job  and 
you  will  get  promoted,”  but,  looking  back,  there  were  other 
concerns.    Upon  realizing  the  omission  of  the  award  from  his 
promotion packet, he was told that high-level leaders would not 
be  inclined  to  make  changes  after  the  board  made  promotion 
decisions.    However,  after  he  learned  about  the  process  for 
including  the  omission,  he  sought  assistance  from  AFPC  and  his 
SR.    In  fact,  his  SR  has  been  accommodating  and  supportive  in 
his appeal process. 
 
The  applicant  states  that  with  the  assistance  and  guidance  of 
military  and  non-military  reviewers,  he  believes  he  acted 
appropriately, given the information available to him at various 
points  in  question.    He  has  continued  the  appeal  process  based 
on their support, coupled with his own research, as well as what 
he was told by AFPC. 
 
His  intent  in  pursuing  this  appeal  process  is  not  to  deceive, 
but ask only for what was earned.  He dedicated over 14 years of 
his life to a career of service to the United States.  He wants 
nothing more than to complete his Air Force career with dignity. 
 
By  letter  dated  27  Jul  12,  the  applicant  states  that  he  had  a 
personal discussion with his former commander in which they re-
visited  some  of  the  facts  regarding  his  case.    During  their 
conversation,  they  recalled  two  additional  key  points  they 
discussed while working the initial draft of his 09 PRF: 
 

 

3
 

 
  1)  His  commander  acknowledged  discussing  the  05  Charleston 
award during initial drafts of the 09 PRF. 
 
  2)  They  remembered  a  rule  and  intentionally  chose  not  to 
include the award due to “higher-level methods” of capturing PRF 
bullets;  however,  neither  of  them  was  clear  who  specifically 
imposed this requirement (presumably a Reserve Officer Training 
Corps or an Air Education and Training Command requirement). 
 
The  applicant  states  the  bottom  line  is  they  were  told  PRF 
citations were to be cross-referenced with historic OPR records.  
Since  there  was  no  prior  historic  documented  mention  of  the 
award, they believed it could not be considered part of the PRF 
document. 
 
The applicant’s responses, with attachments, are 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.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.    After  a 
thorough review of the evidence presented, we are persuaded that 
corrective action is warranted.  We took particular note of the 
statements  from  the  Senior  Rater  and  Management  Level  Review 
(MLR)  President  indicating  a  squadron  level  award  was 
unintentionally  omitted  from  his  PRF.    Given  their  unequivocal 
support, we find the evidence sufficient to grant the requested 
relief.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s PRF be replaced 
with  the  reacommplished  PRF.    We  also  recommend  that  his 
corrected  record  be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of 
major  by  an  SSB  for  the  P0409C  Major  CSB.    Accordingly,  we 
recommend his record should be corrected as indicated below. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 
 
a.  The  AF  Form  709,  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF), 
 
prepared  for  consideration  by  the  Calendar  Year  2009C  (P0409C) 
Major Central Selection Board (CSB), reflecting “Vital to unit’s 
Daedalian  Awd  for  AMC’s  #1  LRS—maintained  92.3%  vehicle 
commission  rate  during  wartime  ops,”  be  declared  void  and 
removed from his records. 
 
 

4

 
 
b.  The  attached  PRF,  reflecting  the  third  line  in  Section 
IV, Promotion Recommendation, "Vital for #1 LRS, AMC Daedalian—-
kept  a  92.3%  wartime  vehicle  in-commission  rate  &  earned  sq 
Warrior of Qtr" be accepted for file in its place.   
 
It  is  further  recommended  that  his  corrected  record  be 
considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  (0-4)  by  a 
Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  2009C 
(P0409C) Major CSB. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-01396  in  Executive  Session  on  18  Oct  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.    The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 May 12. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 15 Jun 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jul 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Jul 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Chair  
Member 
Member 

 
Chair 

  
  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 

 

5