RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00380
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of Major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2000 (CY00B) Major Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 18 August 1999 through 17 August 2000 was not available for the Major Selection Board that convened on 18 September 2000.  This occurred against his additional rater’s wishes due to an “administrative oversight.”

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a letter from the additional rater of the contested report, dated 5 February 2000, and the Officer Performance Report closing 17 August 2000.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of captain.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY00B Major Board, which convened on 18 September 2000.

OPR profile since 1995 follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			25 Oct 95	Meets Standards (MS)
			25 Oct 96				(MS)
			27 Jun 97	Training Report (TR)
			17 Aug 97				(MS)
			17 Aug 98				(MS)
		     # 17 Aug 99				(MS)
		     * 17 Aug 00				(MS)

* Contested Report
# Top Report on file for the CY00B Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed this application and states that the applicant contends his 17 August 2000 OPR was not available for the P0400B board due to an administrative oversight.  In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a statement from the additional rater who supports the applicant’s appeal efforts.  The additional rater states, “I was extremely disappointed to learn that due to an administrative oversight, his last OPR did not get into his record in time for the promotion board.”  Neither the applicant nor the additional rater explains the administrative oversight, and neither explained what efforts, if any were made prior to the board to ensure the OPR was filed in time for consideration.

In reviewing the OPR, they noted that both the rater and additional rater signed the report on 26 October 2000.  Even though the OPR was not completed in a timely manner, the fact remains that it was not due for file until 17 October 2000 (AFI 36-2406, Table 3.6, Note 1a).  While both the applicant and the additional rater state there was an administrative oversight, they argue that the OPR did not exist at the time of the P0400B board that convened on 18 September 2000.  They note that the rater is not heard from.

Promotion boards consider thousands of OSRs.  The officers being considered by these boards have OPRs with different closeout dates.  It is not realistic to hold the Air Force accountable for expedition of reports that close out in close proximity to the promotion boards.  For this reason, they rely on a regulation to hold every officer and rating chain to the same level of responsibility, requiring reports to be placed in the OSR within 60 days after the closeout date.  If they were to allow the inclusion of reports that were not required to be in the OSR to be the basis for SSB consideration, it would be unfair to other officers who had reports close out less than 60 days from the promotion board, and whose reports may not have been expedited by their rating chains.  The applicant’s rating chain signed the contested report after the promotion board, indicating to them they had no intention to expedite the processing of the report.  They recommend denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration on the basis of the evidence provided.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 March 2001, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant, for review and response within thirty (30) days.  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 probable 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 the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant asserts that the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 17 August 2000 should have been included in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) when it was considered for promotion by the Calendar Year 2000 Central Major Board on the basis that an “administrative oversight” caused its delay in being filed.  The statement from the additional rater is duly noted; however, we note that neither he nor the applicant explained the circumstances associated with the administrative oversight.  Presumably the applicant, as well as his rating chain, were well aware that he was to be considered by the promotion board; however, we find no evidence that any effort was made to ensure the report in question was finalized in time for inclusion in the applicant’s OSR.  In fact, we note that the report in question was not signed until well after the selection board convened.  In our opinion, had the rating chain intended for this report to be reviewed by the selection board, they would have ensured the report was expeditiously processed.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 30 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 February 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 March 2000.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 March 2001.

					   
					   Panel Chair