RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00323

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Narrative-only Performance Recommendation Form (N-O PRF) 
rendered for the Calendar Year 2013A (CY13A) Line of the Air 
Force (LAF) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central Selection Board 
(CSB) (PO513A) be removed from his record and replaced with the 
revised version he provided. 

2.  He be granted a Supplemental Air Force Student Management 
Level Review (MLR) for PO513A to re-compete for a “Definitely 
Promote” promotion recommendation utilizing the revised N-O PRF.  

3.  He be provided Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration 
for the PO513A CSB utilizing the revised N-O PRF.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to a 100 percent turnover in the Air Combat Command (ACC) 
Commander’s Action Group (CAG) and his senior rater being on 
Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment while the applicant was PCSing, 
his N-0 PRF contained multiple errors which unjustly resulted in 
his receiving a promotion recommendation of “P” at the Air Force 
Student MLR and not being selected for promotion to the grade of 
Lt Col on the PO513A CSB.  He was not allowed to out-process 
from Langley AFB, VA until a signed N-O PRF was completed for 
the PO513A CSB, and his senior rater, the ACC Commander, was TDY 
at that time, so his senior rater approved the signature of his 
N-O PRF without ever having seen or reviewed the document.  His 
end of tour decoration and Officer Performance Report (OPR) were 
not completed until after his N-O PRF was signed.  The N-O PRF 
contained various material errors: the stratification statement 
of “#2/245 HQ ACC Maj’s” should have read “#2/248 HQ ACC Maj’s”; 
the stratification line “#1/12” was used twice, and Company 
Grade Officer of the Year (CGOY) lines were used multiple times; 
substantive performance from his record should have been 
included on the PRF, but was not; and, data contained in his 
final OPR and decoration should have been considered for 
inclusion in his PRF.  His senior rater agreed the N-O PRF was 
not an accurate portrayal of his record of performance, and 
stated that he would not have approved the PRF had he seen it.  
The ACC/CC personally revised the applicant’s PRF and agreed the 
applicant should be provided consideration at a supplemental 
MLR.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In Jun 12, prior to the applicant departing his assignment in 
the ACC CAG at Langley AFB, VA to attend Intermediate 
Developmental Education (IDE) in-residence, ACC/CC signed a N-O 
PRF on the applicant for use in an Air Force Student MLR 
scheduled to meet from 8 to 10 Jan 13.  The N-O PRF, with the Air 
Force Student MLR assigned recommendation of “Definitely 
Promote,” “Promote,” or “Do Not Promote This Board,” would be 
utilized on the PO513A CSB.  In addition, the N-O PRF would 
remain in his record and be reused if a second MLR/CSB occurred 
while he was still in student status.  

On 15 Jun 12, the applicant was awarded the Meritorious Service 
Medal First Oak Leaf Cluster for his outstanding service during 
the period 6 Jun 08 through 27 Jun 12.  

On 9 Jul 12, the applicant received an Officer Performance 
Report (OPR) covering the period 16 Jan 12 through 1 Jun 12.  

On 11 Jan 13, the President of the Air Force Student MLR 
notified the applicant he received an overall promotion 
recommendation of “Promote” or “P” on his N-O PRF from the AF 
Student MLR, which would be used on the P0513A CSB scheduled for 
18 Mar 13.  The P0513A CSB was the applicant’s second below-the-
primary zone (BPZ) Lt Col selection board.  The applicant was 
not selected for BPZ promotion on the P0513A board.  

On 26 Aug 13, the applicant applied to the Evaluation Review 
Appeals Board (ERAB) for approval to replace the N-O PRF he 
received in Jun 12 with an updated version.  His application 
contained a memorandum signed by ACC/CC noting the substantive 
omissions from the applicant’s original N-O PRF, forwarding a 
corrected version, and asking that the original    N-O PRF be 
replaced with the updated version.  The ERAB determined there 
was no error or injustice and denied the request.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits 
C and D.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an 
injustice.  The applicant was not selected for BPZ by the 
PO513A CSB.  Based upon AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation to deny the 
applicant’s request to remove and replace his current N-O PRF 
with a revised version for reconsideration on a supplemental 
PO513A CSB, his request for SSB consideration should be denied.  
The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show the 
report was unjust or inaccurate at the time it was written. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove his N-O PRF for the PO513A CSB and replace it with an 
updated version, indicating there is no evidence of an error or 
an injustice.  The applicant did file an appeal through the 
ERAB, however, the ERAB denied the applicant’s request because 
it was not convinced an error or injustice had occurred.  After 
a thorough review of all the supporting documentation presented 
to the ERAB and the BCMR, all the information the applicant is 
requesting be added to his PRF was available to the Senior Rater 
for review prior to the N-O PRF being written.  The applicant 
states he was unable to out-process from his base until a stand-
alone N-O PRF was completed, confirming he was in receipt of the 
N-O PRF from the Senior Rater when he departed in Jun 12.  At 
least six months passed before the Air Force MLR convened on 
8 Jan 13, and another two months passed prior to the PO513A CSB 
convening on 18 Mar 13.  If the applicant had requested a 
correction to his N-O PRF in a timely manner, and his senior 
rater concurred, it would have been corrected prior to the Air 
Force Student MLR.  However, there is insufficient evidence to 
show the applicant took any action to have his N-O PRF corrected 
prior to the CSB.  Further, the PO513A CSB reviewed the 
applicant’s entire record, to include all the information the 
applicant is now seeking to have added to this N-O PRF.  
Moreover, the fact the applicant was not selected for promotion 
BPZ by the PO513A CSB is a very strong motivator to request the 
N-O PRF be rewritten and to seek reconsideration.  However, the 
applicant did not exercise due diligence in ensuring any 
perceived mistakes on the N-O PRF for the PO513A CSB were 
addressed with his Senior Rater prior to the Air Force Student 
MLR or the CSB.  The applicant has since had his N-O PRF 
updated.  Finally, an evaluation report is considered to 
represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is 
rendered.  Once a file is accepted for record, only strong 
evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from the 
record.  The applicant has not substantiated the contested 
report was rendered in error or constituted an injustice.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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.  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 AFPC/DPSID and adopt their rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error of injustice.  While the Board notes the applicant’s 
letter of support from the ACC/CC, we believe it would be 
inappropriate for the Board to grant the applicant a 
supplemental Student MLR when he had ample opportunity and the 
personal responsibility to request any necessary corrections to 
his N-O PRF prior to the Student MLR.  Therefore, in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend 
granting the requested relief.

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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00323 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2014-00323 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 2 May 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 20 May 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.