RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04685
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL: 
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar 
Year 2011D (CY11D) Major Line of the Air Force (LAF) Central 
Selection Board (CSB) be removed from his records.

2.  The term “DISQ-MED INDEF” be removed from his Air Force 
Officer Selection Brief (OSB). 

3.  His corrected record be considered for promotion to the 
grade of major (O-4) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the 
CY11D Major LAF CSB.

4.  He receive back pay and allowances and he receive credit for 
time in grade for pay, promotion and retirement purposes from 
the date of his promotion to the present.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a 5-page supplemental statement, the applicant’s counsel 
presents the following major contentions:

The combination of a PRF "Promote" recommendation coupled with 
narrative language reflecting “promote this officer,” rather 
than "definitely promote this officer" along with notification 
to the selection board that he was indefinitely medically 
disqualified from flight, ended any chance of promotion.

While his failure to complete his master’s degree is a 
discriminator, it pales in comparison to the aforementioned 
issues.  During 2011, he was recovering from back surgery and 
had an iatrogenic dependency to pain killers.  The above leaves 
little doubt that during 2011 he was medically impaired by his 
back and prescribed medications.  The PRF is grounded solely on 
his medical condition.  It could not have been based on his 
officer performance reports.  As such it is not performance 
based.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a 5-page 
supplemental statement, and various other documents associated 
with his request.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The 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:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
correct his PRF.  DPSIDEP states that on 27 Jul 2012 and 1 Aug 
2012, he initially filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The ERAB 
considered the applicant's appeal; however, it was returned 
without action due to lack of supporting documentation.

The applicant believes the recommendation of "Promote" coupled 
with the language stating "promote this officer" rather than 
“definitely promote this officer” ended his chance of promotion. 
Moreover, the applicant states the PRF is not performance based; 
however, he provides no evidence to demonstrate exactly how the 
report written by his evaluators did not accurately reflect his 
performance during the contested period.  He claims the PRF is 
based solely on his medical condition.  He provides an abundance 
of medical documentation; however, he has failed to substantiate 
how it relates to the PRF as written.  There is no evidence that 
the medical issue the applicant was experiencing was directly or 
indirectly related to the final product of the PRF.  
Furthermore, the PRF did not comment on any of the medical 
issues the applicant was going through as this is strictly 
prohibited in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Systems.  Although the applicant may feel the PRF 
attributed to his non-selection for promotion and he was placed 
in the bottom 20 percent of eligibles, the fact is that 
53 percent of eligibles were awarded a “promote” recommendation 
and in fact were selected to the next higher grade.

A PRF is a direct communication from the senior rater to the CSB 
on an officer’s future promotion potential.  However, this is 
just a recommendation from the senior rater and the CSB had 
available the applicants entire selection record for review.  
The PRF is considered to represent the senior rater's best 
judgment at the time it is completed, based on all known or 
provided performance information at the time.

DPSDIEP contends that once a report is accepted for file, only 
strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal 
from an individual's record and the burden of proof is on the 
applicant. The applicant has not substantiated that the 
contested PRF was not rendered in good faith by the senior rater 
based on knowledge available at the time and has not proven that 
removal of the contested PRF, for the reasons provided, is 
warranted or justified.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration.  DPSOO states that based on DPSIDEP’s 
recommendation to deny correcting the PRF, they recommend his 
request for SSB consideration be denied.

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisory opinions fail to recognize a fundamental ingredient 
of proof in any legal proceeding; namely, circumstantial 
evidence.  The absence of “definitely promote” language in the 
text of the PRF can only be attributed to the applicant’s 
compromised medical condition.  Coupling the lukewarm PRF with 
the highly prejudicial "DISQ-MED INDEF" guarantees nonselection.  
That 53 percent of eligibles were awarded a "Promote" and were 
selected to the next higher grade is a non sequitur because it 
does not take into account the narrative portion of the PRF 
where the term "definitely promote" is frequently used to 
bolster a "Promote."

Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 find no evidence which would persuade us 
that his records should be corrected as requested.  While 
Counsel’s assertions in response to the Air Force evaluations 
are noted, he has not provided sufficient evidence that would 
warrant an exception to policy.  We believe removing the PRF and 
granting a SSB without sufficient evidence would be unfair to 
others similarly situated and establish a basis for 
circumventing the procedures in place.  Therefore, in the 
absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we conclude the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that 
he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 
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(s) 
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.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 16 Jul 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-04685:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 2012, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP dated 3 Mar 2013.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 3 Apr 2013.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 2013.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 20 May 2013.