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:

                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

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.




                                CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                Panel Chair