RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01799 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 4 Nov 11 through 3 Nov 12 be placed in her Officer Selection Record for promotion consideration by the calendar year 2012 (CY12) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Nurse Corps Central Selection Board (CSB), and she receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY12 Lieutenant Colonel Nurse Corps CSB. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to her and her supervisor’s overlapping deployments and her supervisor’s subsequent retirement, her 2011 OPR was extended five months with a new close out date of 3 Nov 11; as a result, her subsequent OPR was ineligible for consideration by the CY12 CSB, which convened prior to the report being a matter of record. However, because AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, indicates that only 60 days of supervision are required to close out a report, her 2011 OPR should have closed out on 3 Sep 11, instead of 3 Nov 11. As a result, her subsequent report would have closed out on 3 Sep 12 and would have been included in her officer selection record (OSR) when she was considered for promotion by the contested promotion board. 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 major (O-4). The applicant’s OPR for the period 2 Jun 10 through 3 Nov 11 was finalized on 6 Dec 11 and acknowledged by the applicant on 7 Dec 11. The CY 12 Lt Col Nurse Corps CSB was convened on 5 Nov 12. The applicant’s OPR for the period 4 Nov 11 through 3 Nov 12 was finalized on 15 Nov 12 and acknowledged by the applicant on 21 Nov 12, after the convening of the contested promotion board. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibit C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID defers to AFPC/DPSOO for SSB recommendation or consideration. DPSID notes the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluations Report Appeals Board (ERAB). Since the contested OPR is already on file in both the applicant's OSR and the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), no action is required by DPSIDEP. Although, the applicant’s OPR closed out on 3 Nov 12, it was not required to be in her record until 60 days after the close-out date, or 3 Jan 13. The Board convened on 5 Nov 12 and the applicant’s evaluator's did not sign and finalize the report until 15 Nov 12, with the applicant acknowledging receipt on 21 Nov 12, after the convening of the board. There are other officers in similar circumstances where the close-out date is similar; however, unless the OPR is processed with all signatures, the OPR cannot be placed into the member's record. To allow the applicant’s OPR to be included after the convening of the board would allow her an advantage other officers are not afforded. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request to include the contested OPR in her P0512C OSR and grant her SSB consideration. The absence of this report is not an error because it was not required to be filed in her OSR until 3 Jan 13. Officers being considered by promotion boards have different closeout dates for their performance reports. Since many eligible officers fall into this dilemma, approving SSB consideration with a report not required to be on file would generate unfairness in the current process. Eligible officers meeting a CSB have the option to submit a letter to the board president addressing any matter of record that they believe is important to their consideration for promotion. As such, the applicant could have written a letter to the board members informing them of the accomplishments mentioned in the report. The applicant did not take these steps. The time to submit a letter is prior to convening of the original board, not after nonselection. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 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 an error or injustices. The applicant argues that her officer performance report (OPR), closing on 3 Nov 11, should have actually closed out on 3 Sep 11; however, we do not find the applicant’s arguments sufficient to conclude that she is the victim of an error or injustice. In this respect, we note that while she cites certain provisions of the governing directive indicating that only 60 days of supervision were required of her new rater to close-out her OPR, other than argument and conjecture, she has presented no evidence for us to evaluate in determining if the provisions she cites are applicable to her situation. In this respect, we note that while the applicant argues that her report should have closed out on 3 Sep 11 when her new rater attained 60 days of supervision, she has presented no specific evidence that would allow us to ascertain if the close-out date of the contested report was erroneously calculated. In this respect, we note that her submission contains no information whatsoever that would allow us to calculate the number of days supervision of her previous and new raters for the report in question. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the close-out date of the contested OPR was correctly established. Therefore, having no basis to conclude that the close-out date was erroneous, there is also no basis for us to conclude that the subsequent OPR would have closed out any earlier than it did or been a matter of record when the applicant was considered for promotion. 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-2013-01799 in Executive Session on 4 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Aug 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 12 Sep 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 13. 1 2