RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01668
			COUNSEL:  NONE
	 XXXX		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His duty title on his Officer Performance Reports (OPR) and Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the period of 2006 to 2009 while assigned to Reserve Officer Training Command (ROTC) be changed to ?Commandant of Cadets.? 

2. He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration. 
     
_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His career ended because he was not competitive for promotion. He was not given the duty title of ?Flight Commander? although he performed the work.  

The Permanent Change of Station (PCS) freeze in 2008 imposed a hindrance on his career development and promotion opportunity causing unjust termination.  He was retained in his ROTC position for four years when the typical assignment was only two to three years and this kept him from a flight command job.  

In the summer of 2011, the ?Flight Commander? duty title was afforded to the ROTC cadre.  However, he was denied this duty title in 2009 when he was In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) for promotion consideration.   This was tremendously unfortunate considering his over 14 years of honorable service and exceptional performance.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his PRF, OPRs and other documents associated with his request.  

The applicant?s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.  
_______________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 Jun 2001, the applicant reentered the Air Force as a commissioned officer with four years prior active duty service.   

 

On 30 Sep 2011, he was discharged with honorable character of service and narrative reason for separation ?Nonselection, Permanent Promotion.?  

He served 10 years, 3 months and 3 days on active duty as a commissioned officer and a combined total of 14 years, 5 months and 25 days on active duty.  

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPALS recommends denial of the applicant?s request to change his duty title to ?Recruiting Flight Commander? or ?Operations Flight Commander.? DPALS states that the applicant?s duty titles were accurate during his tenure.  He was an AFROTC instructor from approximately Jun 2005 to Jun 2009.  The changes to the duty title structure were not effective for the career field until 30 Oct 2010.  The applicant?s OPRs accurately reflect his position as it was the standard practice prior to the change and is commensurate with the duty title of his peers at the time.  

The complete DPALS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

DPSID recommends denial of the applicant?s request to amend the duty title on his OPRs and PRF.  There is insufficient evidence provided by the applicant to corroborate that the original reports were unjust or inaccurate at the time they were written.  Although the applicant performed the same duties as those afforded the duty title currently, the changes to the duty title structure were not effective until 30 Oct 2010, well after the contested reports were closed out and made a matter of record.  Moreover, the intent of the change was for an immediate effect and there was no mention of changing duty titles retroactively nor was there any mention made of changing duty titles that were already made a matter of record.  Furthermore, the applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI)    36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the applicant failed to provide additional supporting documents requested by the ERAB and allowed the case to close.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant?s request for SSB consideration for the Calendar Year (CY) 2009C and 2010D Central Selection Boards (CSB).  Based on DPALS?s and DPSID?s recommendation to deny relief, DPSOE also recommends denial.  

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In accordance with Air Force Pamphlet 36-2506, You and Your Promotions ? the Air Force Officer Promotion Program, his records did not show any significant leadership criteria, such as flight command, and it had a detrimental impact on his career.  The Air Force assignment freeze in 2008 kept him in an ROTC assignment an extra year, longer than the typical three year assignment.  This resulted in him having no leadership experience for promotion consideration.  

The duty title changes in 2010 were the direct result of the assignment freeze and changes were implemented for the next board.  This contributed to his problems and benefitted officers who met the Dec 2010 promotion board.

In Mar 2010, the Chief of Staff, wrote that the Air Force should acknowledge the tremendous responsibility of instructors, pay careful attention to professional progression of instructors and that instructor duty is a vital career step leading to higher levels of responsibilities.  

Although he mentioned these points in his initial request, none of the responding advisory letters mention these key facts.  Additional injustices are the imposed policy changes, the tremendous attention he gave to this matter and the three plus years it has taken to have this issue fairly addressed.  He asks for just consideration, with the hope of being allowed to have his records corrected and presented to the SSB.   

The applicant?s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.  

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.ÿÿThe applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.ÿÿThe application was timely filed.

3.ÿÿInsufficient 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 are not persuaded that his duty title should be changed and he be granted SSB consideration.  The applicant?s contentions are duly noted; however, he has not provided persuasive evidence to override the rationale provided by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR).  The applicant has not shown that he has been treated any differently than other similarly situated officers in the same timeframe.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_____________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2013-01668 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
         , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:  

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant?s Master Personnel Records  
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPALS, dated 6 May 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Aug 2013.  
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 3 Sep 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 2013.  
    Exhibit G.  Bullet Paper, Applicant, 29 Oct 2013, w/atchs.
 



								 														Panel Chair
				Panel Chair