RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01617
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 November 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “From” date on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for  the  period  16
September 1992 through 26 November  1993  be  changed  to  3  July  1993  to
reflect the actual dates supervised.

A Training Report (TR) be prepared for the period 16 September  1992  to  12
June 1993, the time he spent attending Operation Bootstrap.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR for the period  16  September  1992  through  26  November  1993  is
incorrect in that it reflects a 14-month period  of  supervision  while  the
actual supervision is less than  4  months.   The  OPR  should  reflect  the
actual dates supervised, not time prior  to  PCS  while  still  assigned  to
Kirtland AFB and  participating  in  Operation  Bootstrap  to  complete  his
advanced education.

A TR would more accurately reflect the  period  participating  in  Operation
Bootstrap while completing his Master’s degree.

The injustice  was  discovered  while  reviewing  his  Officer  Preselection
Brief,  received  on  15  February  2007,  for  a  Central  Selection  Board
scheduled to convene on 11 June 2007.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of his OPR for  the  period
16 September 1992 through 26 November 1993, SO AA-1026, HQ  377  MSS,  dated
22 June 1993, a University of New Mexico MBA completion  certificate,  dated
31 July 1993, TO TH-054,  542 CTW,  dated  10  August  1992,  and  Operation
Bootstrap approval documents dated 30 July 1992, 31 July 1992, and 5  August
1992.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant did not file an appeal to  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeals  Board
(ERAB).  However, this appeal was forwarded to  them  for  review  and  they
recommended denial.

While assigned to Kirtland AFB, NM, his last OPR before  the  contested  OPR
closed-out on 15 September 1992.  He then attended  the  University  of  New
Mexico under the Bootstrap Program from 16 September 1992 to  12  June  1993
while en route to a PCS reassignment to Tinker AFB, OK.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the request to change  the  start  date  on
his 16 September 1992 through 26 November 1993  OPR,  and  inserting  a  TR.
The application was not submitted in a timely manner.  By law, an  applicant
must file a claim within three  years  of  the  date  of  discovery  of  the
alleged error or  injustice  in  accordance  with  10  United  States  Code,
Section 1552{b}.  While they would normally  recommend  the  application  be
denied as untimely, they are aware of the decision in the case of  Detweiler
v. Pena, which  prevents  application  of  the  statute’s  time-bar  if  the
applicant files while still on active duty.  Therefore,  they  reviewed  his
request as if it was timely.

There is no documentation to show applicant’s actual  date  arrived  station
at Tinker AFB, OK.  They can only assume he had taken some  leave  en  route
(13 June 1993 to 2 July 1993) and arrived at Tinker AFB on 3 July 1993,  the
date he is requesting the “From” date of the contested OPR be corrected  to.


The governing regulation during the time of the contested report was AFR 36-
10, dated 1 August 1988 and, after reviewing applicant’s  request,  the  OPR
was completed in accordance  with  that  regulation.   Table  3.7,  Rule  4,
column 3, states the “From” date will be the day after the closeout date  of
the last OPR.  Table 6.1, Rule 9, states that an AF Form 707B,  rather  than
an AF Form 475, will be  prepared.   Paragraph  6-5e  states  that  when  an
officer is attending Bootstrap en route to a new  station,  an  official  at
the new duty station completes the report

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20  June
2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.
However, 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 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 and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   The
contested OPR was completed in accordance with the governing  regulation  in
place at that time, and the applicant was not authorized a TR for  the  time
spent in the Bootstrap program.  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-2007-01617
in Executive Session on 2 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 7 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair