RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02793
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Pre Selection Brief (OPB), in the Developmental 
Opportunity block be changed to indicate “IDE Select.” 

2.  His corrected record receive Special Selection Board (SSB) 
consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel 
by the Calendar Year 2011A (CY11A) and the CY12B Lieutenant 
Colonel (Lt Col) Medical Service Corps (MSC) Central Selection 
Boards (CSBs) for which he was eligible below-the-promotion zone 
(BPZ).  

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPB is the only source document of what will appear on the 
Officer Selection Brief (OSB) seen by the CSB.  Errors on the 
OPB left uncorrected could have a negative effect on an 
officer’s promotion opportunity.  In accordance with (IAW) the 
Personnel Service Delivery Memorandum (PSDM), when officers are 
selected to attend Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) 
in-residence, the "Developmental Opportunity" block on an OPB 
should read "IDE Select."  

Once he discovered the error, he made three attempts to have the 
Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) correct this mistake; however, 
it was to no avail.  The OPB should have been corrected in the 
fall of 2010 when he was selected as an Air Force Fellow, which 
makes him eligible for Intermediate Developmental Education 
(IDE) equivalent credit.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
OPB for the CY11A CSB; an extract from the promotion board 
announcement; his letter of notification selecting him as an Air 
Force Fellow, and other various documents associated with his 
request.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was promoted to the grade of major, having assumed 
that grade   effective and with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Jun 
09.  He was considered and nonselected by the CY11A and CY12B Lt 
Col CSBs, which convened on 7 March 11 and 16 Jul 12, 
respectively.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPF recommends denial of his request to change his OPB to 
reflect select in the Developmental Opportunity block and noted 
the applicant is not a "Select."  IAW AFI 36-2301, Developmental 
Education, para 6.3., members identified as "Selects" are 
designated “Selects” by their promotion board; however, the 
applicant was not designated as a “Select” by his promotion 
board.  Further, HQ USAF/A1 eliminated the process of 
identifying Non-Line officers as "Selects" from all central 
promotion boards as stated in policy change memorandum dated 
30 Nov 07, “Policy Change to Developmental Education Quotas for 
Promotion Board."

Since he was designated by the Developmental Education 
Designated Board (DEDB) to attend the Air Force Fellows program 
he was a “Designee."  Additionally, since he has completed the 
IDE program, the "Designee" block code will no longer reflect on 
his OPB (block codes are set to expire upon graduation).  

The complete DPAPF evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial, stating, in part, after careful 
review of his application, no evidence was found to show the 
applicant's nonselections for promotion to the grade of Lt Col 
by the CY11A (BPZ) and CY12B (BPZ) Lt Col MSC Boards were a 
result of a material error or injustice.  The applicant had the 
option to write a letter prior to the board, but he chose not to 
do so. Further, to grant his request would be unfair to the 
other nonline officers who are also DE selects and do not have 
their Developmental Opportunity populated on their OSBs.  

The PSDM the applicant refers to define a "Select" as being a 
select for developmental education (DE) by a promotion board.  
Nonline officers are not selected for DE by a promotion board.  
Therefore, their developmental opportunity block will always be 
blank.  This is supported by the evaluation provided by DPAPF.  

The applicant believes he was harmed at the CY11A board.  In 
AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, para 
2.10, and in the OPB instructions that each eligible officer is 
provided prior to meeting a CSB, it clearly states that officers 
have the option to write a letter to the board and address any 
matter of record concerning themselves that they believe is 
important to their consideration for promotion.  The applicant 
did not write a letter to the board.  We do note that his 
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY11A board states 
that he was selected for an OSD internship.  As for the 
statistics provided by the applicant, only those officers who 
already completed resident IDE as of the board convening date 
fell into the 40 percent select rate.  Even if his OSB indicated 
he was a select, he fell into the category of IDE by 
correspondence or seminar and an advanced degree with a Promote 
where the select rate was 13 percent.

In regard to the CY12B AF management level review (MLR), the 
applicant was an AF Level Student and his PRF indicated he was 
an IDE Fellow-Strat Policy Fellow.  In addition, his Duty 
Qualification History Brief (DQHB) assignment history reflected 
that he was attending IDE.  For the CY12B Lt Col board, 
completion of IDE in-residence in 2012 was documented on his 
selection brief.  Therefore, both the MLR and the Central Board 
were aware of his resident IDE.

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 Aug 12 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  While we note that promotion board guidance can be 
somewhat confusing, DPSOO notes, the applicant had the option to 
provide a letter to the promotion board, if he so desired, to 
explain the circumstances surrounding his selection as an “Air 
Force Fellow.”  In regard to the CY11A board, it appears the 
applicant was incorrect in his understanding of how his status 
as a “Fellow” should be reflected on his OSB because the PDSM 
clearly specifies that “Select” in the developmental opportunity 
block is indicated if selected for developmental education by a 
promotion board.  In addition, it refers health professionals to 
their career manager.  Further, for his stats at the time of the 
CY12B MLR and promotion consideration, the applicant’s PRF 
identified him as an IDE Fellow, as well, it was reflected on 
his OSB, therefore, the MLR and the board was aware of his 
resident IDE status.  In view of the above and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or 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-2012-02793 in Executive Session on 14 Feb 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPF, dated 16 Jul 12.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 21 Aug 12.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 12.




                                   Panel Chair