RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00996
                                             INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 Sep 06


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 10
Jun 03 through 9 Jun 04 be included in his  Officer  Selection  Record
(OSR) for the CY04B Senior  Developmental  Education  (SDE)  Candidacy
Board.

He be considered for SDE selection by special  selection  board  (SSB)
for the CY04B SDE Candidacy Board.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he was considered for promotion and SDE selection  by  the  CY04B
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, his most recent evaluation
was a 13-month old Training Report (TR) and  three  OPRs  he  received
while  assigned  to  a  MAJCOM  staff.   Other  than   his   Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), information on  his  performance  over  the
past year in his most current assignment was  not  available  for  the
promotion board to evaluate.  The missing OPR  substantially  improves
the nature of his record and his competitiveness  for  SDE  selection.
He exercised reasonable diligence to try and get his OPR completed  on
time.  He understands that his OPR was  not  required  to  be  in  his
record according to AFI 36-2406.  However, the scope of responsibility
and performance in his current assignment substantially  impacted  the
overall quality  of  his  “performance  and  competitiveness  for  SDE
selection.”

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of the OPR closing
9 Jun 04 and a letter from his rater explaining that  the  applicant’s
OPR was not late due to  any  fault  of  the  applicant  and  that  he
believes the applicant’s responsibilities and accomplishments detailed
in the OPR could have  made  a  difference  in  the  board’s  decision
regarding SDE selection.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of major.  He was
considered and selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by the CY04B Lieutenant Colonel Central  Selection  Board  (12
Jul 04).  However, the applicant was not selected as a  candidate  for
SDE by the SDE Candidacy Board.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   They  point
out that promotion boards consider thousands of  OSRs.   The  officers
being considered by the  boards  have  OPRs  with  different  closeout
dates.  According to AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.8.5.6, OPRs on  extended
active duty (EAD) officers are due at HQ AFPC no later  than  60  days
following the closeout date.  The applicant’s OPR was not required  to
be on file until 9 Aug 04 (promotion board convened 12  Jul  04).   To
allow SSB consideration on the basis of including reports not required
to be on file would be  unfair  to  other  officers  who  had  reports
closeout less than 60 days from the promotion board and whose  reports
may not have been expedited by the rating chain.

Additionally, each officer eligible  for  promotion  consideration  is
entitled to communicate with the board president.  The applicant could
have  used  this  means  to  inform  the  board   president   of   his
accomplishments covered in the 9 Jun 04 OPR.  They have verified  that
the applicant did not exercise this entitlement.

The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation,  the  applicant’s  group
commander submitted a letter of support opining that  the  reason  for
recommended denial by AFPC/DPPPO is unjust.  The commander states that
AFPC/DPPPO basically state in their logic for denial that although the
applicant’s situation was unfair, if they had to review and reconsider
other unfair incidents there would be too many of them.

The applicant’s commander notes that the  contested  OPR  records  the
applicant’s most extraordinary year of  performance.   He  also  notes
that due to several significant events taking place in the  same  time
period,  administrative  processes  in  the  group  and  wing  “failed
miserably” contributing to an on time OPR rate of 40%.  The  commander
also discusses why writing a letter to the  board  was  not  a  viable
alternative for the applicant.  The  commander  states  that  although
there are “a lot of administrative reasons” why the  applicant  should
get another chance, the most important reason is that the applicant is
a loyal and outstanding military officer with a great future  for  the
Air Force.

The complete response is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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  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 and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  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-2005-
00996 in Executive Session on 26 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Apr 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, 3MSG/CC, dated 20 May 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair