RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04171
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The incorrect statement in Section IV, Promotion
Recommendation, of his AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation,
prepared for the P0512A Central Selection Board (CSB), be
corrected.
2. His corrected record be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB)
for the P0512A Central Selection Board.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His AF Form 709, Section IV line 7, included incorrect
information. "EOG cmd center dir" was erroneously included
instead of "EOG Exec, ICC Dir. The error on his AF Form
709 omitted pertinent and factual information that may have
impacted his non-selection for promotion and continuation. The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) considered his request;
however, they were not convinced the original report was unjust
or wrong. He cannot understand how a clear error constitutes a
report as not being "unjust or wrong." A thorough review of his
entire record will demonstrate to the Board that he is deserving
of a promotion to the next higher rank and/or continuation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 27 Jan 1997, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and
on 30 Nov 2012, he was honorable discharged. The narrative
reason for separation was NON-SELECTION, PERMANENT PROMOTION.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to
correct his AF Form 709. DPSID states that the applicant has
not provided evidence to prove his assertion that the original
report was inaccurate or unjust. Air Force policy states 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
provided insufficient support from his evaluators to justify his
request. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong
evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an
individual's record. To alter the current AF Form 709 would
circumvent the integrity of the form as originally completed by
the senior rater who has the sole responsibility to determine
its context.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicants request for SSB
consideration. DPSOO states that based on DPSIDs advisory and
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:
On 8 Feb 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (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. 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, 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 11 Jun 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-04171:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID dated 6 Dec 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 16 Jan 2013.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 2013.
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-04171
The narrative reason for separation was NON-SELECTION, PERMANENT PROMOTION. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to correct his AF Form 709. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05186
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05186 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col), rendered for the period 16 September 2012 through 26 June 2013, be filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her final OPR from the Joint Staff, corrected DMSM, or the correct version of her PRF were not timely submitted to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01396
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. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00954
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) to provide the applicant SSB consideration, during which he will be provided an opportunity to write a letter to the board explaining why he had been unable to complete ACSC prior to the board. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00293
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to correct his DAFSC on his P0510A PRF. He requests his record be corrected with the Section Commander duty title and a C prefix added to his DAFSC, followed by SSB consideration. Therefore, we are convinced that both...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04050
During that same rating period and with knowledge of the complainants allegations, his commanders awarded him an Air Force Commendation Medal and the 2007 Field Grade Officer of the Year Award. In response to his request for entitlement to the MSM for time served at Misawa Air Base Japan, Headquarters (HQ) AFPC/DPSIDRA, Air Force Recognitions Programs, by letter dated 15 December 2011, (Exhibit B) advised the applicant that after careful review of his claim they were returning this portion...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00740
The complete DPALL evaluations, dated 15 May 2013 and 27 March 2013, are at Exhibits C and D. AFPC/DPSID defers to the Air Force Decoration Board on whether the applicants actions merit award of the MSM, 2 OLC. f. Providing his corrected record, to include the PRF reflecting an overall promotion recommendation of DP, promotion consideration by an SSB for the CY10A Lt Col CSB. d. He be awarded the MSM, 2 OLC, for meritorious service during the period from 25 November 2008 to 30 November...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02037
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits B through D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to substitute the contested PRF. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the prior ERAB decision, and no valid evidence provided by the applicant of any error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02635
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants official military service records, 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 applicants request for changing the Given Under My Hand date on his MSM for the period 7 August 2005 to 12 August 2010. We took note of the comments and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03948
His corrected record, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB). In support of his request the applicant submitted copies of his DLAB and DLPT scores, USCENTAF Form 1, Air Medal (AM) and Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) Mission Information Justification Sheet, citations for the Air Medal Second and Third Oak Leaf Cluster, a memorandum from his commander and supporting documents. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit...