RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02220
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. The Officer Selection Record (OSR) prepared for the Calendar Year 2004A (CY04A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Nurse Corps Selection Board be corrected to include her Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 16 May 2003 through 31 January 2004 and that the same OPR be corrected in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment - to read “Last performance feedback was accomplished on 17 March 2003” rather than “Last performance feedback was accomplished on 8 October 2003.”

2. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY04A Central Lieutenant Colonel Nurse Corps Selection Board be reaccomplished and that she be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY04A Central Lieutenant Colonel Nurse Corps Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her OPR closing 31 January 2004 should have been in her OSR prepared for the CY04A Board and her performance feedback date in section VI, of the same OPR is incorrect.  She indicates she has not received a PFW since March 2003.  Also, she requested her former supervisor rewrite the PRF prepared for the CY04A Board to include statements from her OPR closing 31 January 2004.  She states she has never seen the PRF and her supervisor did not discuss it with her prior to the Board.

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 effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 December 1999

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY04A Lieutenant Colonel Nurse Corps Central Selection Board which convened on 1 through 12 March 2004.

OPR profile since 1994, follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

		      28 Feb 98	Meets Standards (MS)
		      30 Nov 98				(MS)
		      30 Nov 99				(MS)
		      16 Jun 00				(MS)
		      15 May 01				(MS)
		      15 May 02				(MS)
		  **  15 May 03				(MS)
		  *   31 Jan 04				(MS)

* Contested Report
** Top Report for the CY04A Lt Col Nurse Corps Central Selection Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicated IAW with AFI 36-2406, the OPRs on EAD officers are due to HQ AFPC/DPPBR3 no later than 60 days after close-out.”  In this case, the applicant’s OPR closed out on 31 January 2004; therefore, it was not required to be at HQ AFPC/DPPBR3 or filed in the OSR until 31 March 2004.  The OPR was received by AFPC/DPPBR3 on 23 March 2004 which is within the 60-day suspense.  The CSB convened 1-12 March 2004 making the OPR not a required document for the promotion board’s consideration.  The applicant contends the feedback date of 8 October 2003 is inaccurate based on a PFW dated 17 March 2003.  After reviewing the PFW, it was determined the 17 March 2003 PFW was from her previous reporting period.  The PFW dated 17 March 2003 was also given by another rater who was not in the rating chain on the 31 January 2004 report.  The 8 October 2003 feedback date coincides with her 16 May 2003 through 31 January 2004 reporting period.  Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided.  While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.  The applicant did not provide any documents/letters from the rating chain stating if or when they gave her feedback.  At this time, the feedback date of 8 October 2003 is considered an accurate date.  The applicant also contends her supervisor did not discuss the PRF nor was she presented a copy prior to the board convening.  IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 1 July 2000, paragraph 8.1.4.1.7, the senior rater has the responsibility to provide the ratee a copy of the PRF approximately 30 days before the CSB.  Also, paragraph 8.1.4.5.1, states, it’s the ratee’s responsibility to contact the senior rater if a copy of the PRF has not been received 15 days before the CSB.  The applicant further requests that bullets from her 31 January 2004 report be included in the PRF.  IAW 36-2401, paragraph A1.6.2.2, the senior rater bears the responsibility of selecting what to include in the PRF, and what to leave out; which portions of the officer’s career to incorporate, and which portions to have supported by the record.  Additionally, the senior rater may consider reliable information when completing the PRF.  Information deemed reliable by the senior rater does not have to be documented in the record of performance.  Finally, a member must have the senior rater and the management level review president’s concurrence of the proposed changes in order to make a change to section IV of the PRF.  In this case, the applicant failed to obtain these two important requirements and has not provided any documentation that an attempt was made to obtain their support.

HQ AFPC/DPPPOO indicated they defer to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory concerning the contested OPR and PRF.  Accordingly, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request to meet an SSB.  The OPR was not required to be on file and the applicant has provided no support to correct the PRF.

The evaluations are at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 August 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 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 an error or an injustice.  The applicant contends her OPR closing 31 January 2004 should have been in her OSR prepared for the CY04A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and the performance feedback date (8 October 2003) in section VI, of the same contested OPR is incorrect.  She indicates she has not received a PFW since March 2003.  She also requested her former supervisor rewrite the PRF prepared for the CY04A Board to include statements from her OPR closing 31 January 2004.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded her records were incomplete at the time she was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY04A central lieutenant colonel selection board.  While it is true the OPR was not on file in the applicant’s OSR, it was not required to be on file until 31 March 2004.  Although the OPR closed out on 31 January 2004, as noted by the Air Force, OPRs are due at HQ AFPC no later than 60 days following closeout of the report.  In the applicant’s case, the OPR was due no later than 31 March 2004, and was received by AFPC on 23 March 2004 - within the 60-day suspense, but after the selection board adjourned.  The applicant provides no documentation that it was the intent of her rating chain to have the contested OPR on file at the time of the promotion board.  Accordingly, the applicant’s OSR before the CY04A Board was complete.

4.	In regard to the PFW issue, the applicant contends the date of feedback on the 31 January 2004 OPR is incorrect on the basis of a PFW she submitted dated 17 March 2003.  However, it is noted this PFW was from the previous reporting period and given by a different rater who was not in the rating chain at the time of the 31 January 2004 OPR.  We note the 8 October 2003 feedback date coincides with the 16 May 2003 through 31 January 2004 reporting period.  The applicant provided no documents or letters from the rating chain stating if or when she received feedback.  Only members of the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the feedback date of 8 October 2003 is considered an accurate date.  

5.	In reference to the PRF, in accordance with the governing Air Force Instruction, it is noted in order to change section IV of a PRF, both the senior rater and management level review (MLR) president must concur on the proposed changes.  The applicant provides no documentation from these individuals concurring in this change.  We note the applicant could have communicated with the board president; however, she did not exercise this entitlement.  Therefore, 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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-2004-02220 in Executive Session on 6 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 July 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 10 August 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 August 2004.