RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04556

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Distinguished Graduate (DG) honors from Instructor Navigator 
(IN) School in June 2002 be included in his official transcripts 
and on his Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF), specifically 
his in-the-zone and one above-the-zone PRFs. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  Shortly after returning from IN school where he earned DG 
honors, he received orders for a temporary (TDY) assignment to 
Japan.  As soon as he returned from that TDY, he received a 
permanent change of station (PCS) assignment to attend 
undergraduate pilot training (UPT) at Vance AFB, OK.  Because 
the entire IN class did not graduate at the same time, DG 
notification was delayed until after his 3 August 2002 PCS.  

2.  His officer performance report (OPR) was already in 
administrative coordination and because training reports are 
supposed to include DG information for official transcripts, his 
PCS OPR only stated that he had earned a recommendation for DG, 
as opposed to earned DG honors.  He was also unable to review 
the OPR prior to his PCS.  

3.  Following UPT he had a PCS to Luke AFB for F-16 training 
where he was selected for promotion to the grade of Major.  He 
missed any record review opportunities during the writing of his 
PRF for his Major's promotion board.  Prior to his 2-below board 
for Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col), he was on a non-voluntary 
assignment to Korea when his promotion recommendation form (PRF) 
was written in the spring of 2008.  It was then that he noticed 
that his record did not contain his DG honors or associated 
training reports.  Although he notified his senior rater that he 
had indeed earned DG honors, he could not prove it because his 
certificate and DG notification letters were locked in non-
temporary storage while he was in Korea.  

4.  In 2008, he had a PCS assignment to another base in South 
Korea for back-to-back non-voluntary assignments in Korea.  He 
remained in Korea until October 2010.  His records of DG honors 
were still locked in non-temporary storage until he arrived at 
his current duty location.  He did not receive his non-temporary 
storage until 1 March 2011  The promotion boards he has met, 
thus far, were met while his DG notification letter and 
certificate were stuck in non-temporary storage and his training 
report was never included in his digital transcripts.  

5.  He was passed over for Lt Col.  He has no idea if the DG 
honors would have changed that outcome, but believes it could 
have improved his chances for promotion.  

6.  Upon receiving his non-temporary storage shipment, he 
immediately started an appeal to correct the erroneous OPR in 
spring 2011.  He was eventually told that OPRs cannot have DG 
information on them and that the appropriate avenue was a 
training report.  He does not have a training report that 
mentions his DG honors in his records.  He obtained an OPR 
memorandum of mitigation from his previous, 2002, squadron 
commander but it had little effect on his appeal and was 
rejected.  In an effort to change his PRFs, he attempted to 
contact previous raters but was not successful.  He feels he has 
exhausted all administrative remedies as he has tried corrective 
procedures and appeals provided in regulations.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his Distinguished Graduate Notification 
Letter, Distinguished Graduate Certificate, congratulatory 
letters, and his 6 Mar 2002 thru 2 Aug 2002 contested OPR with 
memorandum of mitigation.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving as a Regular Air Force 
commissioned officer in the grade of Major (O-4) with an 
effective date of rank of 01 May 2006.  His Total Active Federal 
Military Service Date (TAFMSD) and Total Federal Commissioned 
Service Date (TFCSD) are 26 May 1996.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
correct the contested PRFs.  DPSID states that based on the lack 
of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant and the 
presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the PRFs, they 
recommend that no changes be made to the contested PRFs.  To 
alter the current PRF would circumvent the integrity of the 
existing PRFs as originally completed by the Senior Rater who 
has the sole responsibility to determine its content.  

2.  The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 Mar 2006.  
He requested his mitigation letter be attached to the 
2 August 2002, OPR for explanation of the DG bullet.  However, 
the ERAB reviewed this application and was not convinced that 
the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and denied the 
applicant's request for relief.  

3.  What the applicant may not realize is that since this is not 
common practice to have a letter attached to an OPR (unless for 
derogatory referral reports), it could have actually had a 
reverse effect and possibly brought on negative attention to his 
record given that the OPR was completed in 2002 and the 
mitigation explanation letter was dated over 10 years later; 
especially when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating 
due diligence when correcting a record.  In any case, they would 
argue that this letter is inappropriate for permanent filing as 
it could actually create more harm than a favorable outcome; 
particularly, when a date on a document is 10 years after the 
original document was signed.  

4.  The applicant contended that he did not receive an AF Form 
475, Education Training Report and one could not be located.  He 
merely received an OPR documenting he earned recommendation for 
DG in IN school.  He believes the DG honors not being documented 
on his PRFs could have been a contributing factor for being 
passed over to Lt Col.  However, the applicant was advised via 
the ERAB appeals process that the DG marking is only authorized 
to be documented on an AF Form 475, in accordance with AFI 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, chapter 6, 
paragraph 6.2.1.1, which states that mandatory submission of 
training reports are upon completion or interruption of, or 
elimination from, formal training or education when the 
scheduled course length is eight weeks or more or as authorized 
in this chapter when the specific course is less than eight 
weeks (SOS, Chaplain programs, Aerospace Basic Course and COT).  

5.  They concede that the applicant has demonstrated that an 
error/injustice exists in the absence of the AF Form 475 to 
record his DG accomplishment.  Accordingly, in an effort to make 
the applicant's record “whole”, they recommend the Board direct 
that an AF Form 475 be reaccomplished by the appropriate 
schoolhouse to document his accomplishment of being a 
Distinguished Graduate.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  The applicant responded by reiterating his previous 
contention that he was stationed in Korea involuntarily for two 
consecutive assignments (3 years total) and did not have access 
to his non-temp storage items.  Consequently, he was unable to 
obtain proof of his DG honors until 1 March 2011, well after his 
Lieutenant Colonel promotion boards.  

2.  He fully understands now that even though he had source 
documents consisting of a DG certificate and a notification 
letter, they do not constitute an official record for PRF 
justification since they are not on an AF Form 475.  As such, he 
understands that to ask a previous senior rater to change an old 
PRF based on those source documents is the incorrect avenue.

3.  The applicant indicates that he disagrees with the 
AFPC/DPSID suggestion that a letter to the board with no proof 
would have had a negative effect on his promotion.  
Nevertheless, he fully concurs with their recommendation to re-
accomplish the AF Form 475 and he is willing to abandon, or 
postpone if necessary, attempts to change his previous PRFs 
until he gets a re-accomplished AF Form 475.  

4.  He additionally requests that his case be expedited and that 
he meet a supplemental board to re-evaluate his promotion given 
that a new AF Form 475 with DG honors significantly strengthens 
his chances of being promoted and surely constitutes an error or 
injustice in accordance with the AFPC/DPSID findings.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 an error or injustice warranting 
favorable action on the applicant’s request that his 
Distinguished Graduate (DG) honors from Instructor Navigator 
(IN) School in June 2002 be included on his in the zone and one 
above-the-zone Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF).  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, we see no evidence of 
error or impropriety in the PRF processing and are not persuaded 
by the applicant's contentions, that he has been the victim of 
an injustice.  In this respect, we note that the applicant was 
advised via the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) appeals 
process that the DG marking is only authorized to be documented 
on an AF Form 475, Education Training Report, in accordance with 
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System.  Therefore, 
we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility’s 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  Notwithstanding our decision above, sufficient relevant 
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 
injustice with respect to documenting the applicant’s selection 
as a distinguished graduate from IN school.  In support of his 
contention, the applicant provides credible evidence in the form 
of the Distinguished Graduate Certificate, notification letter 
and congratulatory letters as well as a letter of mitigation 
from his former commander.  In light of the aforementioned 
evidence, the applicant’s concurrence with the proposed 
recommendation and the support the applicant received from his 
commander we are in agreement with the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility’s recommendation that an AF Form 475 be 
accomplished to document his Distinguished Graduate 
accomplishment.  We also recommend that his corrected record be 
considered for any boards for which the accomplished TR was not 
a matter of record. Accordingly, we recommend that his records 
be corrected in the following manner.

________________________________________________________________

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 Air Force Instructor Navigator School accomplished 
an AF Form 475, Training Report (TR), for the period of 
2 April 2002 through 21 May 2002, documenting “Distinguished 
Graduate” and the TR be signed as of 28 May 2002, and then 
placed in the applicant’s official record in its proper 
sequence.  

	b.  It is further recommended that his record, to include 
the accomplished TR, be considered for promotion by any boards 
for which the accomplished TR was not a matter of record.  

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 11 July 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-04556:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 September 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicants Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 February 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 February 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, APPLICANT, dated 4 March 2013.