RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04368 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS: Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of 10 May 2010 through 9 May 2011 be included as part of the “As Met” record for consideration for promotion to the grade of Colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the calendar year (CY) 2011 Colonel, Central Selection Board (CSB). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her OPR was submitted to the executive staff for routing on 4 May 2011. Information reflected on her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) referenced the 9 May 2011 OPR. The board convened on 6 June 2011. The evaluators signed and finalized the report on 11 June 2011. Since the OPR was not submitted to AFPC until after the board convened, “unsubstantiated” material appeared on her PRF. Her OPR was not intentionally withheld from the board. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of an email and a statement from her former additional rater. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel with Effective Date and Date of Rank of 1 May 2005. The applicant has one non-selection to the grade of Colonel by the CY 2011 Colonel CSB. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states although the OPR closed out on 9 May 2011, in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, Table 3.6, Note 1a, the report was not required to be in the applicant’s record until 60 days after the close-out date, 9 July 2011. There are other officers in comparable circumstances where the close-out date is similar; however, unless the OPR is processed with all signatures, it cannot be placed into the member’s record. To allow the OPR to be included after the board convenes would allow the applicant an advantage not afforded other officers. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. Their recommendation to deny SSB consideration is based on DPSID’s memorandum stating the absence of the report was not an error because it was not required to be filed in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) until 9 July 2011, after the board convened. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 to warrant approval of the applicant’s requests. 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 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 regarding the inclusion of her OPR closing 9 May 2011 in her OSR. Additionally, we note the applicant’s contention that because the OPR was not a matter of record for the CY11A Colonel CSB, it caused unsubstantiated material to be reflected on her PRF; however, we note that applicable Air Force policy does not restrict a senior rater to only commenting on issues documented in performance reports. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-04368 in Executive Session on 19 June 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 November 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 January 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 1 February 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 March 2012.