RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01894
						  (Case 2)

		INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 5 July 1990 through 4 January 1991, be declared void and removed from her records.

She be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for CY92A (6 July 1992), CY93A (12 October 1993) and CY94A (11 October 1994) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards, with her corrected record.  If selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by one of the cited boards, she be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of colonel.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report was not an accurate assessment of her performance.  She was given the referral OPR without the benefit of any advice, counseling, verbal or written feedback from the rater.

In support of her request, applicant submits copies of letters from the additional rater of the contested report and the former Chief of Professional Services and Deputy Surgeon for the Pacific Air Forces.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) and applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) reveals her Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) as 18 November 1970.  Prior to the applicant’s break in service, during the period 31 January 1984 through 14 June 1988, she was a member of the active Air Force Reserve.  On 15 June 1988, she was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty (EAD) in the grade of major.  The following is a resume of her Officer Performance Report (OPR) ratings subsequent to her EAD date.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		    30 Jun 89	Education/Training Report - MAJOR
		     4 Jan 90	Meets Standards (MS)
		     4 Jul 90		MS
		*    4 Jan 91	Does Not Meet Standards (Referral)
		#   28 Oct 91	MS
		    16 Jul 92	MS
		##  16 Jul 93	MS
		### 16 Jul 94	MS
		####16 Jul 95	MS
		    16 Jul 96	MS
		    16 Jul 97	MS  -  LIEUTENANT COLONEL
		    16 Jul 98	MS
		    17 Jun 99	MS
		     1 May 00	MS
		     1 May 01	MS
		+    1 May 02	MS

*  Contested Referral OPR

# Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY92A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, which convened on 6 July 1992.

## Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY93A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, which convened on 12 October 1993.

### Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, which convened on 11 October 1994.

#### Top report at the time she was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY95A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, which convened on 6 November 1995.

+ Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) by the CY02A Central Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 28 October 2002.

The applicant’s OSR reveals that, on 23 October 2002, she wrote a letter to the CY02A selection board, with inclusion of a 3 June 1996 letter from the additional rater of the contested report and a 26 July 1993 letter from the Chief of Professional Services and Deputy Surgeon for the Pacific Air Forces.

On 31 May 2003, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel under the provisions of AFI 36‑3207 (Maximum Service or Time in Grade) and voluntarily retired, effective 1 June 2003.  At the time of retirement, she had served a total of 20 years, 3 months and 26 days of active service for retirement.

On 29 April 2003, the AFBCMR considered and recommended approval of applicant's request that, due to a missing decoration in her Officer Selection Record (OSR), she be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY02A (28 October 2002) Central Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the Meritorious Service Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM 2OLC).  On 5 May 2003, the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards directed SSB consideration by the CY02A selection board, with inclusion of the MSM 2OLC in her OSR.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states the applicant has not substantiated that the OPR is unjust.  Her claim of not receiving feedback was not supported by any evidence.  The applicant’s claim that she was not given any reason for the referral report is not plausible since the OPR specifically states she was relieved of her duties during the reporting period.  Not only did the applicant wait over 12 years to submit this appeal, the letters supporting her contentions were written two and five years after the report was rendered.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory opinion and has nothing further to add.  Since HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s recommendation is to deny the applicant’s request to void the contested OPR, DPPPO states her request for SSB consideration is not warranted.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 19 September 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (HQ AFPC/DPPPE) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent 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 BC-2003-01894 in Executive Session on 30 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated Jun 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, undated.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 03.