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:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member

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.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair