RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01170

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) written for the P0612C Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be rewritten with promotion recommendation comments in Section IV of the PRF.

2.  His records with the rewritten PRF receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY12C (3 Dec 12) (P0612C) Colonel CSB.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His PRF that met P0612C promotion board was unjust as it did not contain required promotion recommendation comments in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems.  His wing commander explained that the senior rater decided to complete his PRF without promotion recommendation comments as allowed by Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 12-57.  However, the PSDM neglected to require comments as set out in the governing AFI at the time of the board.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5).  

In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, chapter 10, paragraph 10.1.1: The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was established to provide all Air Force personnel with an avenue of relief for correcting errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial as the applicant has not exhausted all administrative avenues of relief by not first filing an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 Mar 06.  The applicant must submit an AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, with all the required documentation through the VMPF/Evaluation.  The same instruction states, “when changing section IV (Promotion Recommendation) of the PRF, it requires the concurrence of both the senior rater and MLR president.”  Furthermore, PSDM 12-57, dated 3 Jul 12, paragraph 9, states: “Narrative comments on PRFs for above-the-zone (APZ) active duty to colonel and below (line and non-line), who are two or more times deferred, are optional.  In this case, the applicant had been non-selected two or more times making comments on the PRF optional.  

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

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial regarding the applicant’s request for SSB consideration, based on AFPC/DPSIDE’s recommendation to deny rewriting the P0612C PRF because the applicant has not exhausted all reasonable administrative remedies prior to submitting this application for relief to the AFBCMR.  If the administrative appeal through the Evaluation Appeals process is not successful, then the applicant may resubmit the DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, and the results of the Evaluation Appeals to SAF/MRBR for processing to the AFBCMR.  

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends that the nature of his case has been misunderstood.  He is questioning which guidance is more authoritative, the AFI or the PSDM.  He argues that he has exhausted all available administrative remedies, as the ERAB considered his case, but advised him that they could only review his case if his senior rater provided a new, updated, revised PRF.  His senior rater would not do so, according to his staff, because he followed the guidance of PSDM 12-57.  




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, to include the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  A PSDM provides advanced notice, detailed guidance and implementation instructions to base-level military personnel flights on upcoming personnel programs, and takes precedence over existing Air Force policy or instruction. In this matter PSDM 12-57, issued 3 Jul 12, for the P0612C promotion board directed that “Narrative comments on PRFs for Above-the-Zone (APZ) active duty to colonel and below (line and non-line), who are two or more times deferred, are optional.  Senior raters retain the latitude to push their best-qualified officers but are not required to complete Section IV (Promotion Recommendation) of the PRF on all APZ officers already deferred two or more times.”  In this case, the applicant had been non-selected two or more times, therefore, the senior rater’s decision to not make narrative comments on the applicant’s PRF was in accordance with the most authoritative guidance at the time, PSDM 12-57.  The Board did note the applicant’s contention that he did unsuccessfully exhaust all available administrative remedies in attempting to gain his requested relief, however, other than his assertion, he did not submit any evidence from the ERAB officially denying his appeal to change his PRF.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.


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-2014-01170 in Executive Session on 16 Jun 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	


The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01170 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 20 Apr 15.
      Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 28 Apr 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 15.