RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05077

		COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS:

1.  Her referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for 
the period of 16 May 2002 through 15 May 2003 be expunged from 
her record.  

2.  She be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration 
by all the impacted promotion boards.  

3.  She receive back pay and allowances for the period from her 
date of rank to the present and time-in-grade for pay, promotion 
and retirement purposes, if selected for promotion or 
continuation by the SSB.  

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a combined eight page brief, the applicant, through counsel 
makes the following contentions:  

1.  She was twice non-selected for promotion to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col), (0-5), by Lt Col promotion 
selection boards for Calendar Year (CY) CY11A and CY12A.  
According to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Memorandum 
of Instruction for the CY12A Lt Col Selection and Continuation 
Board, the selection rate for Lt Cols was 85 percent in the 
primary zone.  Selective continuation was encouraged for non-
selected Majors who either qualified for retirement within 5 
years of 30 Nov 2012, or whose Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 
were on the 2012 critical skills list.  Her AFSC was not listed 
on the 2012 critical skills list but having served in excess of 
17 years, she met the criteria of qualifying for retirement 
within 5 years of 30 Nov 2012.  However, selective continuation 
was discouraged for Majors with negative indicators in their 
records.  Taken in its totality her records reflect only one 
discriminator, the referral OPR.  Prior to the CY11A Board she 
submitted a statement to the board to explain the referral OPR.  
Nevertheless, as a result of the CY12A non-selection she was 
involuntarily separated from the Air Force on 30 Nov 2012.  

2.  Involuntarily separating her based solely on a referral 
report grounded in bias was a grave injustice.  Having served 
over 17 years, she met the criteria in the SECAF memo.  
Furthermore, she overcame the referral OPR by; first being 
continued to 20 years as a Captain, then against the odds she 
was promoted to Major.  Since that promotion, she performed 
exemplary.  When the Air Force promoted her to the grade of 
Major it was because she fully demonstrated the full trust and 
confidence to perform the duties of this higher grade.  It 
stands to reason if she were never promoted to Major she would 
have been permitted to retire in the grade of Captain.  There is 
no doubt this referral OPR should be expunged from her record 
and subsequently reconsideration for promotion/continuation 
through a special selection board should be granted.  Temporary 
Early Retirement Authority (TERA) should also be a 
consideration.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits her counsel’s 
brief, supporting documents and correspondences and documents 
extracted from her military personnel record.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Nov 12 with a 
narrative reason for separation as Non-selection Permanent 
Promotion.  She was credited with 17 years, 5 months and 21 days 
of active duty service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.  

_______________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states the applicant 
has not provided compelling evidence to show the report is 
unjust or inaccurate as written.  

2.  The applicant received a referral report with derogatory 
comments which imply that she was not meeting minimum acceptable 
standards.  The applicant, from the evidence provided, was given 
the opportunity to rebut the referral report, and indeed 
rebutted appropriately.  No evidence has been provided in this 
case that the referral marking or comment on the report is 
invalid or otherwise unfounded.  Based upon the presumed 
sufficiency of the referral OPR as served, and insufficient 
evidence to support the allegations made by the applicant, they 
find that the referral comment mentioned in the applicant's 
contested report was appropriate, and as such there is no basis 
in which to support removal of the contested evaluation.

3.  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 failed to provide any information/support from 
either the rater or additional rater on the contested 
evaluation.  In the absence of input or explanation from the 
evaluators, they presume that the report is in fact valid as 
written.  It is determined that the report was accomplished in 
direct accordance with all applicable policies and regulations.  
They contend that once a report is accepted for file, only 
strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal 
from an individual's record.  

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

1.  AFPC/DPSOO states that based on AFPC/DPSID's recommendation 
to deny relief, they recommend denial for SSB consideration for 
promotion and continuation.  

2.  The applicant met and was twice non-selected for promotion 
to Major by the CY04A Major board which convened on 1 Nov 04.  
She met the CY04 Captain Selective Continuation Board and was 
offered continuation to retirement eligibility as an officer.  
At the time of this board, the applicant was in a critical skill 
AFSC and the guidance provided to the board was to use the fully 
qualified method of selection.  The applicant was selected for 
promotion to Major by the CY05B Major Central Selection Board 
which convened on 5 Dec 05.  Her selection to Major terminated 
her continuation period and her date of separation (DOS) 
returned to indefinite.  

3.  The applicant met, and for the second time, was non-selected 
for promotion to Lt Col by the CY12A Lt Col board which convened 
on 5 Mar 12.  All twice deferred officers who were not 
retirement eligible or within two years of retirement 
eligibility were eligible for continuation.  The SECAF 
instructions to the board stated “as we are in a period of force 
reductions, you normally should not continue an officer with 
negative quality indicators documented in the record unless it 
was clearly in the best interests of the Air Force to do so.”  
The applicant was not in a critical skill approved by the SECAF 
for this board and did have a negative quality indicator in the 
selection record.  Although board members did have the option to 
continue the applicant, they chose not to do so.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response the applicant states she respectfully disagrees 
with the Air Force advisory opinions and requests the Board 
review her case carefully prior to making a final decision.  She 
has submitted sufficient evidence within her appeal package and 
it is clearly an injustice to allow this decision to stand.  She 
has more than demonstrated the ability to serve as a field grade 
officer in the Air Force and although unfounded, the issue 
described in the contested report from a decade ago was a mere 
blip in her overall career spanning over 17 years.  Furthermore, 
to have this report be the sole basis of discontinuing her 
career is unjust.  It is especially unjust due to the fact that 
she unmistakably overcame and flourished in her career since the 
report was written.  Being continued to 20 years as a Captain 
and subsequently promoted to Major above the zone is proof.  

The applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice.  After 
reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded the 
applicant’s referral OPR should be expunged and her record be 
given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion 
to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.  The Board took note of the 
applicant’s contention that involuntarily separating her based 
solely on a referral report grounded in bias was a grave 
injustice and having served over 17 years, she met the criteria 
in the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Memorandum of 
Instruction for the CY12A Lt Col Selection and Continuation 
Board, for non-selected Majors who qualified for retirement 
within 5 years of 30 Nov 2012.  However, we do not find this 
contention sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale 
expressed by the Air Force.  We find no evidence showing that 
the applicant’s separation is contrary to governing policies.  
While we are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, 
in the absence of evidence indicating she was treated 
differently than others who are similarly situated, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an injustice.  With regard to the applicant’s request 
to be considered under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority 
(TERA), there is no provision of federal law to support this 
request.  Under TERA, eligibility criteria for early retirement 
differs contingent upon each fiscal year’s manning and mission 
needs to meet congressionally-mandated end strength 
requirements.  The timeline for consideration for early 
retirement under this particular program has passed.  Therefore, 
based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon 
which to favorably consider the applicant's requests. 

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 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 22 August 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-05077:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Dec 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 16 Jan 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 March 2013.




                                   
                                   Chair



AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762







Dear:

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 
1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05077.

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board 
determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or 
injustice.  Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the 
Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not 
possible.

	BY DIRECTION OF THE CHAIR





				                                   
				                                   Chief Examiner
				                                   Air Force Board for Correction
				                                   of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings







 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC


Office of the Assistant Secretary