RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01789
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him as directed by Headquarters Air Force (HAF) with a closeout date of 6 Aug 01 be included in his record.

He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel above-the-promotion-zone (APZ) by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B lieutenant colonel central selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Personnel technicians made a decision not to process his OPR without notification to him or his supervisors.  He was not provided any opportunity for redress of their decision not to include the OPR in his records.  Their decision negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 30 Dec 85.  A review of the OPRs included in the applicant’s record for the CY01B Board reflects overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The top report in the applicant’s record for the Board was a TR with a closeout date of 28 Feb 01.  The applicant has two nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPBR1 advises that the applicant did not require a Directed by HAF OPR.  He was originally projected as requiring a report because the latest report on file closed out 31 Jan 00.  However, on 1 Jul 01 they received a Training Report (TR) for file closing out 23 Feb 01.  As a result, applicant’s OPR reporting string started over.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommend denial of the applicant’s request for a SSB.  Based on the evaluation prepared by AFPC/DPPBR1 and the guidance contained in Military Personnel Flight Memorandum (MPFM) 01-19, dated 8 Jun 01, the applicant was not required to receive a Directed by HAF report.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by indicating two reasons that he disagrees with the evaluations:

	  A.  The original message that identified him as requiring a Directed by HAF report did not contain the stipulations that AFPC/DPPBR and AFPC/DPPPO now cite as grounds for denial of his request.  Before the message, his supervisors were preparing a “Change of Reporting Official” report on him.  The message caused them to change their reason for submitting the report to Directed by HAF.

	  B.  The applicant indicates that he does not agree with AFPC’s interpretation of the guidance contained in MPFM 01-19.  The applicant states that the intent of the guidance was to insure that Directed by HAF report be accomplished (on officers who meet the criteria) provided that a minimum of 60 days supervision is obtained absolutely no later than 5 Sep 01.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

The applicant’s rater also submitted a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluations.  He confirms that he prepared a report that should have been in applicant’s record.  He also agrees with the applicant’s interpretation of when a Directed by HAF report was required.  Finally, he indicates that to use a TR as the latest performance report in the applicant’s record gravely and negatively impacted his chances for promotion to lieutenant colonel.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_______________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 Docket Number 02-01789 in Executive Session on 9 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Statement, AFPC/DPPBR1, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Aug 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 Aug 02.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 24 Sep 02.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, 55 WG/XP, dated 24 Sep 02.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair