AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02037 
COUNSEL:  
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1. His  AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) written 
for the CY10A Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Line of the Air Force 
(LAF)  Central  Selection  Board  (CSB)  be  substituted  with  the 
newly signed PRF he provides.  
 
2. His  corrected  record  receive  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) 
consideration by the CY10A Lt Col LAF CSB.  
 
3. He be selectively continued and reinstated to active duty. 
 
4. The  Board  finds  that  the  SECAF  violated  DOD  1320.08  by 
changing  the  6  year  protective  window  to  a  5  year  protective 
window. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. The Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) was incorrect 
in  concluding  that  the  original  application  for  an  amended  PRF 
was  not  unjust  or  wrong.    The  management  level  review  (MLR) 
President  agreed  with  his  senior  rater  (SR)  that  the  PRF  was 
unjustly written.   
 
2. The  amended  PRF  contains  a  number  of  stratifications,  the 
absence of which caused substantial prejudice.   
 
3. The statements by his SR and MLR President make it clear that 
his  PRF  was  both  unjust  and  wrong  and  satisfies  the  standards 
for an SSB.  Documents sent to a promotion board are required by 
Title 10 United States Code (USC) 615 to be a complete and fair 
record. 
 
4. The  SECAF  violated  DoDI  1320.08  and  lacked  the  authority  to 
change the six year protective window to a five year protective 
window.    The  SECAF’s  actions  outside  the  law  caused  a  chain 
reaction  of  procedural  inequity  that  led  to  violations  of  AF 
regulations.    The  DoDI  intended  those  within  six-years  of 
retirement to be continued on active duty and so did Congress. 
 
5. Through  no  fault  of  his  own,  he  has  been  subjected  to  an 
error-ridden  chain  of  events  that  led  to  his  involuntary 

separation.  His SR and MLR President admitted the errors in his 
PRF created an unjust situation. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On  30  Nov  11,  the  applicant  was  involuntarily  discharged.    He 
served  15  years,  3  months  and  17  days  of  total  active  duty 
service.  
 
The  applicant  has  two  nonselections  to  the  grade  of  Lt  Col  by 
the CY10A (8 Mar 10) and CY11A (7 Mar 11) Lt Col LAF CSBs.  
 
On 30 Nov 11, he was involuntarily discharged. 
 
The  applicant  filed  an  appeal  through  the  ERAB  under  the 
provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted 
Evaluation  Reports,  however,  the  ERAB  was  not  convinced  the 
contested  report  was  inaccurate  or  unjust  and  disapproved  the 
applicant’s request. 
 
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.    DPSID  states  the  applicant  has 
not provided compelling evidence to show the report is unjust or 
inaccurate as written.   
 
While  one  can  sympathize  with  the  applicant’s  experience,  the 
fact remains that he did not exercise due diligence in ensuring 
that  any  perceived  mistakes  on  his  PRF  were  addressed  with  the 
SR and if necessary, corrected prior to the CSB.  The applicant 
has  simply  not  provided  sufficient  evidence  in  this  case  to 
substantiate that he was the recipient of any error or injustice 
in  regards  to  his  contested  PRF.    Based  upon  the  presumed 
sufficiency  of  the  prior  ERAB  decision,  and  no  valid  evidence 
provided by the applicant of any error or injustice, DPSID finds 
the contested report was properly prepared and made available to 
the applicant in a timely manner and the applicant was given the 
opportunity  to  perform  due  diligence  on  the  PRF  prior  to  the 
subject CSB, but failed to do so.   
 
An  evaluation  report  is  considered  to  represent  the  rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once a report 
is  accepted  for  file,  only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary 

2 
 

warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The 
burden of proof is on the applicant.  
 
The  applicant  has  not  substantiated  that  the  contested  report 
was  not  rendered  accurately  by  the  SR  based  upon  knowledge 
available to him at the time.   
 
The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.   
 
AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration.    The  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  that  there 
was an actual material error in the preparation of his contested 
PRF.    In  addition,  the  actions  taken  by  the  SECAF  not  to 
continue  officers  within  six  years  of  retirement  eligibility 
were done IAW DoDI 1320.08. 
 
Under DoD policy, a commissioned officer on the Active Duty List 
(ADL) in the grade of major (0-4) shall normally be selected for 
continuation  if  the  officer  will  qualify  for  retirement  within 
six  years  of  the  date  of  continuation.    When  the  Secretary  of 
the Military Department concerned intends not to continue larger 
pools  of  officers  in  the  grade  of  0-4  who  would  qualify  for 
retirement  within  six  years  of  the  date  of  continuation,  the 
Secretary shall notify the Under Secretary of Defense (USD) for 
Personnel and Readiness (P&R) of the proposed course of action.   
 
For  the  applicant’s  continuation  board,  the  SECAF,  after 
notifying  USD  (P&R),  used  his  authority  to  deviate  from  DoD 
policy to normally continue 0-4s who are within six years of the 
date  of  continuation.    Notification  to  USD  (P&R)  was  made  on 
6 Dec 10.   
 
The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/JA  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  stated  requests.  
At  the  time  the  applicant’s  continuation  board  met,  the 
governing  DoDI  was  DoDI  1320.08,  dated  17  Mar  07.    Paragraph 
6.3 provided, in part states: 
 
A  commissioned  offer  on  the  ADL  in  the  grade  of  0-4  who  is 
subject  to  discharge  according  to  section  632  of  Title  10  USC 
shall normally be selected for continuation if the officer will 
qualify  for  retirement  according  to  section  8911  within  six 
years  of  the  date  of  continuation.    The  Secretary  of  the 
military department concerned may, in unusual circumstances such 
as  when  an  officer’s  official  personnel  record  contains 
derogatory  information,  discharge  an  officer  involuntarily  IAW 
section  632  of  Title  10.    When  the  Secretary  of  the  Military 
Department  concerned  intends  not  to  continue  larger  pools  of 
officers  in  the  grade  of  0-4  who  would  qualify  for  retirement 
within  six  years  of  the  date  of  a  continuation,  the  Secretary 
shall notify the USD (P&R) of the proposed courses of action. 
 

3 
 

The  applicant’s  counsel  is  incorrect  when  he  states  DoD  has 
defined “unusual circumstances” as derogatory information in the 
member’s  personnel  record.    In  fact,  the  provision  cites 
derogatory information as an example of an unusual circumstance, 
not  as  the  sole  unusual  circumstance.    The  next  to  the  last 
sentence  of  the  paragraph  clearly  provides  that  “larger  pools” 
of  officers  might  be  excluded  from  consideration  (which  would 
hardly limit the pool of potentially excluded officers solely to 
those  with  derogatory  personnel  information).    All  that  is 
required  under  this  authority  is  that  the  Secretary  concerned 
notifies  USD  (P&R)  of  the  proposed  action.    This  was  done  for 
the applicant’s board by memorandum from the SECAF to USD (P&R) 
dated  6  Dec  10,  notifying  the  Under  Secretary  that  he  intended 
to exercise his authority under paragraph 6.3 to not selectively 
continue  large  pools  of  officers  who  would  qualify  for 
retirement  within  six  years.    Specifically,  in  order  to  manage 
the  officer  corps  and  to  bring  the  Air  Force  within 
Congressionally  mandated  end-strength,  the  SECAF  notified  USD 
(P&R)  of  his  intent  not  to  continue  large  pools  of  twice-
deferred  officers  in  the  grade  of  0-3  and  0-4  who  would 
otherwise qualify for retirement within six years of the date of 
a  continuation.    After  notification,  the  SECAF  modified  the 
eligibility  criteria  and  instructions  to  selective  continuation 
boards accordingly.   
 
Due  to  a  recent  update  to  DoDI  1320.08,  dated  11  Apr  12,  the 
language  of  paragraph  6.3  (now  6.3.1)  provides  that  officers 
within four years of retirement will normally be continued, but 
there  is  no  entitlement  to  continuation.    Moreover,  it  now 
states that selection or non-selection will be based on the set 
criteria of the Secretary of the Military Department concerned.  
This  provides  a  clearly  expansive  authority  to  the  Secretary 
concerned  to  exempt  officers  according  to  criteria  articulated 
by him. 
 
The complete JA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The applicant’s counsel states the advisory opinion argues that 
Congressional end strength mandates required large cuts to occur 
in the 0-4 grade.  This is not true.  At the end of Sep 11, the 
Air  Force  had  131  too  few  0-4s  (see  attached  Exhibit  B).  
Therefore,  it  is  unmistakable  that  the  Air  Force  had  room  to 
keep 131 more 0-4s to stay in line with Congressional mandates.  
Counsel  asserts  the  SECAF  did  not  have  the  authority  to  change 
the  six  year  window  to  the  five  year  window  and  the  advisory 
opinion  did  not  provide  any  evidence  to  the  contrary.    The 
Secretary concerned never informed USD (P&R) of the six year to 
five  year  change  in  the  one  paragraph  memo  that  the  advisory 
opinion  enclosed.    The  CSB  looked  at  who  fell  within  the  five 
year  period  as  the  determining  factor  instead  of  reviewing  an 

4 
 

airman’s personnel record.  If the five year window was the six 
year window as it was required to be, the applicant would still 
be  on  active  duty  because  he  would  have  been  selectively 
continued. 
 
Counsel  asserts  the  advisory  opinion  utilizes  a  version  of  the 
instruction  to  conclude  the  applicant  was  legally  discharged 
even  though  this  version  of  the  instruction  does  not  legally 
apply  to  the  facts  of  this  matter.    The  fact  the  instruction 
explicitly states “there is no entitlement to continuation” cuts 
against their own argument because the Apr 12 version is not the 
version  that  applies  to  the  applicant.    In  fact,  the  version 
that  applies  to  the  applicant  does  not  include  “there  is  no 
entitlement to continuation” language.   
 
Moreover,  the  Apr  12,  iteration  of  the  instruction  differs 
significantly  in  regards  to  the  version  that  applies  to  the 
applicant.    The  Air  Force  chose  to  focus  exclusively  on 
“derogatory  information”  and  nothing  else.    Thus,  to  the  Air 
Force,  “unusual  circumstances”  cannot  mean  anything  other  than 
LORs,  referral  OPRs,  Article  15s  and  DUIs,  none  of  which  the 
applicant had.   
 
Lastly,  counsel  asserts  the  advisory  opinion  does  not  present 
any  reasonable  evidence  by  which  the  applicant  should  not  be 
given  a  SSB.    The  SR  and  MLR  president  both  concur  with  their 
assessment  that  in  order  for  fairness  to  play  out  a  SSB  is 
warranted.    The  applicant  should  be  given  a  fair  shake  at 
promotion.    Moreover,  it  would  be  unfair  to  every  officer  if 
they were treated in the same manner as the applicant.  Fairness 
and  justice  demand  the  proper  documents  be  laid  out  before  the 
SSB. 
 
In regards to the violation of DoDI 1320.08, counsel states the 
Air Force’s argument relies exclusively on a one paragraph memo 
to USD (P&R) that does not even address the authority to change 
a  six  year  to  a  five  year  window  of  protection.    The  advisory 
opinion  did  not  even  attempt  to  defend  their  perceived  legal 
authority  to  make  such  an  alteration  to  a  Defense  Department 
rule.    Thus,  the  advisory  opinion  is  unresponsive  to  their 
original  filing  and  an  admission  that  the  SECAF  does  not  (and 
did not in 2011) have the legal authority to change the six year 
window to a five year window.  In addition, each and every point 
the  Air  Force  made  to  defend  the  involuntary  separation  of  the 
applicant is rebutted by the arguments set forth in their letter 
as well as the original filing.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

5 
 

In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides a six-
page legal brief and various other documents associated with his 
request.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  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  to  warrant 
changing  the  record  to  show  the  applicant  was  selectively 
continued or reinstated to active duty.  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 office of primary responsibilities and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.    We  note  the 
applicant’s  counsel  argues  the  SECAF  violated  the  DoDI 
1320.08 six-year  protective  retirement  window  policy  for 
selective  continuation  without  authority.    However,  other  than 
his  own  ascertains,  persuasive  evidence  has  not  been  presented 
to show the SECAF acted without authority when he deviated from 
the DoD Policy nor has he demonstrated that the decision not to 
selectively  continue  him  was  unjust  or  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  the  DoDI.    Therefore,  we  find  no  evidence  the 
SECAF  violated  DoD  1308.08  or  that  the  applicant  should  be 
selectively continued or reinstated to active duty.  In view of 
the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we 
find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  this  portion  of  his 
application. 
 
4.  Notwithstanding  the  above,  sufficient  relevant  evidence  has 
been  presented  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or 
injustice  to  warrant  correcting  his  records  to  include  the 
revised  PRF  and  providing  him  SSB  consideration.    Although  the  
OPR  recommends  denial  because  the  applicant  has  not  provided 
compelling evidence to show the PRF is unjust, it is our opinion 
the applicant has provided strong evidence from his senior rater 
and  the  MLR  President  to  support  this  portion  of  his 
application.    Both  officials  have  indicated  the  contested  PRF 
does  not  accurately  portray  their  assessment  of  his  promotion 
potential.  Given this unequivocal support, we find the evidence 
in 
the 
reacommplished  PRF  in  the  applicant’s  OSR  and  granting  him  an 
SSB.    Therefore,  we  recommend  his  records  be  corrected  as 
indicated below.   

sufficient 

this 

case 

to 

recommend 

including 

6 
 

 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 
 
 
a.  The  AF  Form  709,  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF), 
prepared  for  consideration  by  the  Calendar  Year  2010A  (P0510A) 
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), reflecting the 
first  line  in  Section  IV,  Promotion  Recommendation,  “Superb 
officer  w/top  tier  career/accolades—space,  acquisition,  test, 
AFIT  industry  pgm,  launch  ops,  Det/CC,  HAF,”  be  declared  void 
and removed from his records. 
 
b.  The  attached  PRF,  reflecting  the  first  line  in  Section 
 
IV,  Promotion  Recommendation,  "Extraordinary  ldr!  Phenomenal 
career,  accolades—space/launch  ops/acq,  test,  Ed  w/Ind  (only 
2 acq-wide), Det/CC" be accepted for file in its place.   
 
It  is  further  recommended  that  his  corrected  record  be 
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (0-
5)  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year 
2010A (P0510A) Lieutenant Colonel CSB. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2012-02037  in  Executive  Session  on  26  Feb  13,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
Panel Chair 
 
Member 
 
Member 
 
The following documentary was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                      
             
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 May 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DSID, dated 28 Jun 12, w/atch. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 16 Aug 12.  
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Oct 12, w/atch. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 12. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Nov 12, w/atchs. 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
Acting Panel Chair 

7