RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00317
            INDEX CODE:  131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 APRIL 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Record (OSR) be corrected  to  show  his  most  recent
Officer Performance Report (OPR) (20 June 2003 – 19 June 2004) was  accepted
for file on or before 12 July  2004  and  he  be  considered  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for promotion  to  Lieutenant  Colonel  by  the  CYO4B
board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His 2004 OPR was not present for the  Central  Selection  Board  to  review.
His reviewer intended that the additional report meet the Central  Selection
Board and took a draft version to the Management Level  Review  (MLR).   The
OPR was not included in the package sent to the promotion board for  reasons
that were beyond his reasonable control.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a supporting  statement
by his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) commander.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service  Date  as  3
November 1986 and his paydate is 7 December 1984.  He  is  a  former  active
Reserve component officer who entered Extended  Active  Duty  on  1  October
2002. He is currently serving in the grade of major, with a date of rank  of
15 September 1996.  The applicant has one  nonselection  by  the  CY04B  (12
July 2004) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board  (CSB).   His  current
estimated date of separation (DOS) is indefinite.

The following is a resume  of  his  last  eleven  (11)  Officer  Performance
Reports ratings commencing with the report closing 30 September 1987.

  PERIOD ENDING  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

      30 September 1995 (Capt) (Non-EAD)     Meets Standards (MS)
      14 July 1996 (Non-EAD)            MS
      30 April 1997 (Major) (Non-EAD)        MS
      30 April 1998 (Non-EAD)                MS
      30 April 1999 (Non-EAD)                MS
+     20 December 1999 (Non-EAD)        Does Not Meet Standards
      20 December 2000 (AGR)            MS
      21 Dec 2000 thru 30 Sep 2002           No Report Required
      19 June 2003                MS
*     19 June 2004                MS
      19 June 2005                MS

+Referral OPR
*Contested OPR

The contested report was signed by the rater  and  additional  rater  on  20
June 2004 and the reviewer on 22 June 2004.  It was accepted for file  on  3
June 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial.   DPPPO  states   the   officers   being
considered by promotion boards have  OPRs  with  different  closeout  dates.
DPPPO opines it is not realistic to  hold  the  Air  Force  accountable  for
expedition of reports that closeout in  close  proximity  to  the  promotion
boards.  DPPPO relies on a regulation  to  hold  every  officer  and  rating
chain to the same level of responsibility, requiring reports  to  be  placed
in the Officer Selection Record (OSR) within  60  days  after  the  closeout
date – the OPR that closed out on 19 June 2004 was not  required  to  be  on
file until 19 August 2004.  DPPPO states if  they  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.

DPPPO adds each officer eligible for promotion consideration is  advised  of
the entitlement to communicate with  the  board  president.   The  applicant
could  have  used  this  means  to  inform  the  board  president   of   the
accomplishments covered in the 19 June  2004  OPR;  however,  the  applicant
elected not to exercise this entitlement.  DPPPO’s evaluation is at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 4 March 2005  (Exhibit  D).   On  9  March  2005,  the
applicant requested a 30-day extension in order to  reply  to  the  advisory
opinion (Exhibit E).  On 24 March 2005, this office  advised  the  applicant
that due to a statutory mandate, his extension request could not be  granted
and his case was being administratively closed  (Exhibit  F).   On  5 August
2005, the applicant’s case was reopened, per his instruction and  submission
of statements by reviewer of the cited OPR and the  MPF  commander  (Exhibit
G).

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We note the  regulatory  requirement  that
OPRs be accepted for file within 60 days of the closeout  date.   While  the
applicant’s report was apparently accepted for file late, this does  not  in
our opinion lead to a finding of error or injustice.  We  took  notice  that
the selection board in  question  convened  less  than  30  days  after  the
closeout date of the report.  Having reviewed the  supporting  documentation
provided by the applicant in the form of statements  by  the  MPF  commander
and the reviewer of the June 2004 report, we were  not  persuaded  that  his
rating chain fully intended that the processing of the report  be  expedited
for  file  in  his  Officer  Selection  Record  seen  by  the  CY04B  board.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing  and  in  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence by the applicant to the contrary, we find  no  basis  on  which  to
favorably consider 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 8 September 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2005-00317:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 2005, with atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 Feb 2005.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 2005.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Mar 2005.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Mar 2005.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Reviewer, dated 18 Apr 2005, with atchs.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair