RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00380
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of Major  by  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2000 (CY00B) Major Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 18 August  1999
through 17 August 2000 was not available for the Major Selection Board  that
convened on  18  September  2000.   This  occurred  against  his  additional
rater’s wishes due to an “administrative oversight.”

In support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  letter  from  the
additional rater of the contested report, dated 5  February  2000,  and  the
Officer Performance Report closing 17 August 2000.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the CY00B Major Board, which convened on 18 September 2000.







OPR profile since 1995 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 25 Oct 95   Meets Standards (MS)
                 25 Oct 96                   (MS)
                 27 Jun 97   Training Report (TR)
                 17 Aug 97                   (MS)
                 17 Aug 98                   (MS)
                 # 17 Aug 99                 (MS)
                 * 17 Aug 00                 (MS)

* Contested Report
# Top Report on file for the CY00B Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program  Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPO,  reviewed
this application and states that the applicant contends his 17  August  2000
OPR was not  available  for  the  P0400B  board  due  to  an  administrative
oversight.  In support of his appeal, the  applicant  provides  a  statement
from the additional rater who supports the applicant’s appeal efforts.   The
additional rater states, “I was extremely disappointed to learn that due  to
an administrative oversight, his last OPR did not get  into  his  record  in
time for the promotion board.”  Neither the  applicant  nor  the  additional
rater explains the administrative  oversight,  and  neither  explained  what
efforts, if any were made prior to the board to ensure the OPR was filed  in
time for consideration.

In reviewing the OPR, they noted that both the rater  and  additional  rater
signed the report  on  26  October  2000.   Even  though  the  OPR  was  not
completed in a timely manner, the fact remains that it was not due for  file
until 17 October 2000 (AFI 36-2406, Table 3.6, Note  1a).   While  both  the
applicant and  the  additional  rater  state  there  was  an  administrative
oversight, they argue that the OPR did not exist at the time of  the  P0400B
board that convened on 18 September 2000.  They note that the rater  is  not
heard from.

Promotion boards consider thousands of OSRs.  The officers being  considered
by these boards  have  OPRs  with  different  closeout  dates.   It  is  not
realistic to hold the Air Force accountable for expedition of  reports  that
close out in close proximity to the  promotion  boards.   For  this  reason,
they rely on a regulation to hold every officer  and  rating  chain  to  the
same level of responsibility, requiring reports to  be  placed  in  the  OSR
within 60 days  after  the  closeout  date.   If  they  were  to  allow  the
inclusion of reports that were not required to be  in  the  OSR  to  be  the
basis for SSB consideration, it would be unfair to other  officers  who  had
reports close out less than 60 days from  the  promotion  board,  and  whose
reports  may  not  have  been  expedited  by  their  rating   chains.    The
applicant’s rating chain signed the contested  report  after  the  promotion
board, indicating to them they had no intention to expedite  the  processing
of the report.  They recommend denial of the  applicant’s  request  for  SSB
consideration on the basis of the evidence provided.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 March 2001, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the
applicant, for review and response within thirty  (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  probable  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  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant  asserts  that  the
Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 17 August  2000  should  have  been
included in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) when it  was  considered  for
promotion by the Calendar Year 2000 Central Major Board on  the  basis  that
an  “administrative  oversight”  caused  its  delay  in  being  filed.   The
statement from the additional rater is duly noted;  however,  we  note  that
neither he nor the applicant explained  the  circumstances  associated  with
the administrative oversight.  Presumably the  applicant,  as  well  as  his
rating chain, were well aware that he was to be considered by the  promotion
board; however, we find no evidence that any effort was made to  ensure  the
report in question was finalized in time for inclusion  in  the  applicant’s
OSR.  In fact, we note that the report in  question  was  not  signed  until
well after the selection board convened.  In our  opinion,  had  the  rating
chain intended for this report to be reviewed by the selection  board,  they
would have ensured the report was expeditiously processed.  In view  of  the
foregoing and 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 that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 30 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 February 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 March 2000.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 March 2001.




                                CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                Panel Chair