RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04508 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His record, to include the Officer Performance Report (OPR) 
rendered for the period 11 Jul 08 through 17 Apr 09, be 
considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board for the 
Calendar Year 2009 (CY09) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Line of 
the Air Force (LAF) Central Selection Board (CSB).. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not selected for promotion at the CY09 Lt Col LAF CSB 
because the OPR in question was not available to the CSB due to 
a processing error. Due to slow processing, his additional 
rater was unable to sign the OPR in time for the CSB. In fact, 
the OPR was not completed until six months after it was 
submitted to the Air Force Element (AFELM) for processing, and 
almost three months after the CY09 Lt Col LAF CSB. 

 

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

 

_________________ ______________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the Air Force in the grade of major 
during the period of time in question. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an injustice regarding the contested OPR. Although the OPR 
closed-out on 17 Apr 09, IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted 


Evaluation Systems, Table 3.6, Note 1a, a report is not required 
to be in a member’s record until 60 days after the close-out 
date, or in the applicant’s case 17 Jun 09. The board convened 
on 8 Jun 09, and the report evaluators had not signed and 
finalized the report at that time, and did not finalize the 
report until 24 Sep 09. There are many other officers in the 
same circumstances, but unless the OPR is processed with all 
signatures it cannot be accepted for board consideration. To 
allow the OPR to be included after the board convened would 
allow the applicant an advantage other officers are not 
afforded. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice regarding his non-selection for 
promotion. The applicant has ten non-selections to the grade of 
Lt Col by the following CSBs to Lt Col: CY04B, CY05A, CY06A, 
CY06C, CY07B, CY08B, CY09B, CY10A, CY11A, and CY12A. The CY09B 
CSB convened on 8 Jun 09. The OPR in question was not required 
to be in the applicant’s record until 60 days after the close-
out date, or in the applicant’s case, 17 Jun 09. An OPR cannot 
be accepted for file for the board’s consideration until it is 
processed with all the signatures. The absence of his report at 
the CSB is not an error. The applicant submitted a letter to 
the FY09B Lt Col CSB, but failed to address the accomplishments 
mentioned in the report in question. The time to have done this 
was prior to convening the CSB, not after his nonselection for 
promotion. Since many eligible officers fall into this 
predicament, approving supplemental promotion consideration for 
a report which was not required to be on file would generate 
unfairness in the current promotion process. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation, with attachment, 
is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He reiterates his initial contentions, and highlights that the 
advisories fail to address the reason for his late response—fear 
of retribution for filing a promotion appeal. His fear of 
retribution constituted a violation of the “No Fear Act” law and 
compromised his opportunity for promotion. Persons in authority 
should never express or imply that there may be negative 
consequences to an individual choosing to exercise their right 
to appeal their non-selection for promotion. He has always put 
the Air Force mission first. Hence, the prior non-selections to 
a higher grade; i.e., he was accomplishing the mission instead 
of “filling the squares” with PME and advanced education. In 
addition, he takes exception to the AFPC/DPSOO comment that he 
should have mentioned his accomplishments in his memo to the 
promotion board before it convened, rather than after his non-


selection. His activities during this period contributed to his 
receiving the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case, to include his rebuttal response to the 
advisory opinions; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice. Although the applicant’s OPR was not a matter of 
record within 60 days of the close-out date as required by the 
governing instruction, that has no bearing on the fact the OPR 
was not required to be a matter of record until 17 Jun 09, after 
the CY09 Lt Col CSB had convened. Therefore, in the absence 
from statements from the rating officials indicating it was 
their intent for the report to be a matter of record before the 
CY09 Lt Col CSB, we are not persuaded the failure to make the 
report a matter of record prior to the CSB, in and of itself, 
renders him the victim of an error or injustice. In view of 
this, we find the applicant’s reference to his fear of 
retribution if he complained about a late OPR, moot. Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or 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-2012-04508 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Dec 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 14 Jan 13, w/atch. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Mar 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair