RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00618
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record, to include a letter with attachment, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the timing of his annual OPR cycle, his OPR, dated 8 December 2000, closed out while the CY00A board was in session and therefore, was not considered by the selection board.  He believes this 354-day gap, which covered his most senior and responsible position to date, had an impact on how his record was scored, and it did not effectively demonstrate his potential to serve in the rank of lieutenant colonel.  The board may have perceived the absence of this report as a veiled message.  Therefore, he requests the opportunity to write to the board president and have his accomplishments identified in an attachment from his raters covering the 354-day hole in his record.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, OPR closing 8 June 2000, letter from the rater and additional rater of the contested report and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A (28 November 2000) and the CYO1B (5 November 2001) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

OPR profile since 1995 follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			 5 Aug 95              Meets Standards (MS)
			 8 Dec 95				(MS)
			 8 Dec 96				(MS)
			 8 Dec 97				(MS)
			 8 Dec 98				(MS)
		      # 8 Dec 99				(MS)
		        8 Dec 00				(MS)
			 7 Jun 01              Training Report (TR)

#Top Report for the CY00A Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant contends that the guidance for writing a letter to the board does not say, or lead one to believe that it is permissible to submit a letter with an attachment from the raters.  Both his rater and additional rater provided letters supporting the officer’s allegations that the guidance provided is vague.  They disagree.  Written instructions contained in the 5 July 2000 Military Personnel Flight Memorandum (MPFM) attached to the officer pre-selection brief (OPB) and given to the officer before the central selection board specifically instructs the officer to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  The instructions specifically state, “Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action.”  Furthermore, the Instruction Sheet for Review of Pre-selection Brief, “Letters on behalf of others are not permitted.  The following attachments are not permitted:  those documents that can become a permanent part of the officer’s selection folder; i.e., Promotion Recommendation Forms considered by previous selection boards, draft PRFs, unsigned Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and Training Reports (TRs) or decoration narratives.”  It does not state that an officer cannot write a letter to the board with an attachment from his evaluators.  Although the applicant was under the impression that an attachment from his evaluators was not permissible, he still should have written a letter explaining the 354-day gap in his record, and he should have contacted HQ AFPC/DPPPO for clarification as to the type of documentation that was permissible to submit to the board before it convened.

It is unclear whether the applicant is also requesting SSB consideration to include his 8 December 2000 OPR.  Technically, the report did not exist at the time the board met, as it did not close out until 8 December 2000.  AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 1 July 2000, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.8.5.6, states, “OPRs are due for file at HQ AFPC no later than 60 days following closeout of the report.”  Thus the OPR was not required to be filed until 8 February 2002, well after the P0500A board convened on 28 November 2000.  Adding the report to the applicant’s folder for SSB consideration would be unfair to all other officers who were considered for promotion and had OPRs close out after the board convened, but did not get them considered.  Without evidence to the contrary, they maintain the report was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations, and should not meet an SSB.

The evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that 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 an 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 an injustice.  If the applicant desired to submit a letter, with attachment, to the CY00A board president, it was his responsibility to contact the appropriate officials for clarification.  We find insufficient evidence showing that the applicant intended to submit a letter or that he tried to obtain information on this issue prior to the convening of the selection board in question.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00618 in Executive Session on 20 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 January 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 May 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 May 2002.