RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:  				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03469
							COUNSEL: NO
                          			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. The initial overall recommendation of “Definitely Promote” on 
her Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 
2011A (CY11A) (P0511A) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central 
Selection Board (CSB) stand as the final recommendation, in 
contradiction to the established “Promote” recommendation that 
reflects on her PRF filed in her permanent evaluation record.  

2. Her accomplishments that would have made her competitive 
amongst her peers be included in her PRF for the CY12A Lt Col 
CSB.

3. She be promoted to the grade of Lt Col.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her PRF which met the CY11A Lt Col CSB was not the same PRF that 
she had received from her Senior Rater.  Had she been given the 
correct version of the PRF prior to the CSB, she would have had 
an opportunity to gather additional information prior to the 
convening of the CSB.  

In addition, her PRF that met the CY12A Lt Col CSB failed to 
contain all of the accomplishments that would have made the PRF 
competitive amongst her peers.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the 
rank of major (O-4) with a date of rank of 1 November 2004.  The 
following is a resume of the applicant’s performance ratings:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL EVALUATION 

       4 Dec 01 (Capt)					MS
       4 Dec 02							MS
       4 Dec 03							MS
      25 Jul 04							MS
      25 Jul 05	(Major)					MS
       8 May 06							MS
       8 May 07							MS
       8 May 08							MS
       8 May 09							MS
       8 May 10							MS
      17 Nov 10							MS
       6 Aug 11							MS
      
The applicant has five non-selections for promotion to the grade 
of Lt Col by the CY08B, CY09B, CY10A, CY11A, and CY12A Lt Col 
CSBs. 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service record, are contained in the evaluations provided 
by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C 
and D.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to change 
the final recommendation on her P0511A PRF to a “Definitely 
Promote,” as well as to take no action to correct any element of 
her P0512A PRF.  The applicant has not provided any 
substantiating documentation or evidence to prove her assertions 
that the two contested PRFs were rendered unfairly or unjustly, 
and has merely provided only her view of events as she believes 
them to be true.  

A careful review of the existing P0511A PRF shows that the final 
promotion recommendation was hand-marked, which indicates that 
the record was competed for a “Definitely Promote” at the P0511A 
Management-Level Review (MLR) and was not selected for a final 
“Definitely Promote” recommendation.  During this timeframe, the 
applicant contends she departed for an overseas deployment, and 
that this factor may well have complicated any effort by the 
Senior Rater in delivering the final competed “Promote” rated 
PRF which met the P0511A MLR.  However, the applicant does not 
provide any communication from her Senior Rater or any other 
proof to demonstrate that either the PRF was ever mailed to her 
at her deployed location or was otherwise misplaced or lost.  In 
the absence of this evidence, they can only presume that her PRF 
was properly conveyed to the applicant by the Senior Rater.  

In addition, the “Definitely Promote” marked PRF which the 
applicant provided is not a valid PRF for active duty personnel, 
due to the fact that it is digitally signed.  The Air Force only 
allows active duty PRFs that are wet-signed; therefore, this 
digitally signed PRF would never have been accepted for 
consideration at any subject Major Command MLR or CSB, nor be 
accepted for filing in the applicant’s permanent evaluation 
record.  

There does remain a possibility that the Senior Rater or support 
staff may have inadvertently processed this initial PRF, marking 
the PRF as “Definitely Promote” due to an incorrect belief that 
the applicant was a traditional Air Force Reservist, and that by 
some administrative error the applicant mistakenly received a 
copy of this erroneous PRF.  In any event, it remains clear from 
the evidence provided that this error was corrected prior to the 
subject MLR, a new PRF was re-signed, and the applicant’s 
corrected PRF did meet an active duty P0511A MLR, at which she 
was not given a “Definitely Promote” recommendation.  

Concerning the applicant’s second allegation that her P0512A PRF 
did not contain all of her accomplishments in order for her to 
be competitive at the subject CSB, it is solely the Senior 
Rater’s discretion to determine what accomplishments to include 
summarizing an officer’s career, with merely nine lines 
available on the form to do so.  The applicant fails to 
recognize that the PRF is not the only record which documents 
performance within the Officer Selection Record (OSR) at the 
time of CSB promotion consideration.  In addition to the PRF, 
the OSR also includes a complete Officer Record of Performance, 
to include all Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and any earned 
decoration over an officer’s career.  The accomplishments the 
applicant references in her appeal were very likely reported in 
various OPRs and earned decorations spanning her entire career.  

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record.  Additionally, it is 
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the 
time it is rendered.  To effectively challenge an evaluation, it 
is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain – 
not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.  
The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from 
any rating official on the contested PRFs.  It is determined 
that these PRFs were accomplished in direct accordance with all 
applicable Air Force policies and procedures.  To alter the 
recommendations would illegitimize the integrity of the existing 
PRFs as completed by the Senior Raters who were assigned that 
specific responsibility.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.  

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denying the applicant’s request for direct 
promotion to the grade of Lt Col; however, they support Special 
Selection Board (SSB) consideration in order for the applicant 
to write a letter to the CY2011A Lt Col CSB highlighting the 
accomplishments not mentioned in her PRF.  The applicant has not 
provided evidence to support her request for direct promotion to 
the grade of Lt Col.  The results of the original CY11A Lt Col 
CSB were based on a complete review of the applicant’s entire 
selection record, assessing the whole person factors such as job 
performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of 
experience, leadership, and professional development.  Although 
she may be qualified for promotion, she may not be the best 
qualified of the other eligible officers competing for the 
limited number of promotion vacancies in the judgment of a 
selection board vested with the discretionary authority to make 
such selections.  To grant a direct promotion would be unfair to 
all other officers who have extremely competitive records, but 
did not get promoted.  

Additionally, both Congress and Department of Defense have made 
it clear their intent that errors ultimately affecting promotion 
should be resolved through the use of SSBs.  When many good 
officers are competing for a limited number of promotions, it is 
extremely competitive.  Without access to all the competing 
records and a review of their content, they believe sending 
approved cases to SSBs for remedy is the fairest and best 
practice.  

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 November 2012, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received 
no response.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility that the applicant has not provided 
sufficient evidence to warrant favorable consideration of her 
requests.  While the applicant contends the PRF which met the 
CY11A CSB was not the same PRF that she had previously received, 
she provides no evidence that establishes the contested PRF was 
not rendered in accordance with established policy.  
Additionally, finding no evidence that she has been treated 
differently than similarly situated officers, we do not believe 
she has been the victim of an injustice.  While AFPC/DPSOO 
indicates they would support the applicant’s record being 
considered by an SSB in order for her to be able to write a 
letter to the CY12A CSB highlighting her accomplishments not 
mentioned in the contested PRF, we note she had this opportunity 
available to her prior to the board convening.  In view of this 
and since there exists no error in her record, we do not agree 
that she should be afforded an SSB.   Therefore, in view of the 
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the 
requested relief. 

________________________________________________________________

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.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-0469 in Executive Session on 25 April 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                       , Panel Chair
	                       , Member
	                       , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03469 was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPSID, dated 17 Jul 12.
Exhibit D.  Letter, ARPC/DPSOO, dated 31 Oct 12.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 12.




								                           
								Panel Chair


6


2