RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01799

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 4 Nov 11 
through 3 Nov 12 be placed in her Officer Selection Record for 
promotion consideration by the calendar year 2012 (CY12) 
Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Nurse Corps Central Selection Board 
(CSB), and she receive Special Selection Board (SSB) 
consideration by the CY12 Lieutenant Colonel Nurse Corps CSB.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to her and her supervisor’s overlapping deployments and her 
supervisor’s subsequent retirement, her 2011 OPR was extended 
five months with a new close out date of 3 Nov 11; as a result, 
her subsequent OPR was ineligible for consideration by the CY12 
CSB, which convened prior to the report being a matter of 
record.

However, because AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Systems, indicates that only 60 days of supervision are 
required to close out a report, her 2011 OPR should have closed 
out on 3 Sep 11, instead of 3 Nov 11.  As a result, her 
subsequent report would have closed out on 3 Sep 12 and would 
have been included in her officer selection record (OSR) when 
she was considered for promotion by the contested promotion 
board.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of major (O-4).

The applicant’s OPR for the period 2 Jun 10 through 3 Nov 11 was 
finalized on 6 Dec 11 and acknowledged by the applicant on 
7 Dec 11.

The CY 12 Lt Col Nurse Corps CSB was convened on 5 Nov 12.

The applicant’s OPR for the period 4 Nov 11 through 3 Nov 12 was 
finalized on 15 Nov 12 and acknowledged by the applicant on 
21 Nov 12, after the convening of the contested promotion board.

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 Exhibit C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID defers to AFPC/DPSOO for SSB recommendation or 
consideration.  DPSID notes the applicant did not file an appeal 
through the Evaluations Report Appeals Board (ERAB).  Since the 
contested OPR is already on file in both the applicant's OSR and 
the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), no action is 
required by DPSIDEP.  Although, the applicant’s OPR closed out 
on 3 Nov 12, it was not required to be in her record until 60 
days after the close-out date, or 3 Jan 13.  The Board convened 
on 5 Nov 12 and the applicant’s evaluator's did not sign and 
finalize the report until 15 Nov 12, with the applicant 
acknowledging receipt on 21 Nov 12, after the convening of the 
board.  There are other officers in similar circumstances where 
the close-out date is similar; however, unless the OPR is 
processed with all signatures, the OPR cannot be placed into the 
member's record.  To allow the applicant’s OPR to be included 
after the convening of the board would allow her an advantage 
other officers are not afforded.

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

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
include the contested OPR in her P0512C OSR and grant her SSB 
consideration.  The absence of this report is not an error 
because it was not required to be filed in her OSR until 
3 Jan 13.  Officers being considered by promotion boards have 
different closeout dates for their performance reports.  Since 
many eligible officers fall into this dilemma, approving SSB 
consideration with a report not required to be on file would 
generate unfairness in the current process.

Eligible officers meeting a CSB have the option to submit a 
letter to the board president addressing any matter of record 
that they believe is important to their consideration for 
promotion.  As such, the applicant could have written a letter 
to the board members informing them of the accomplishments 
mentioned in the report.  The applicant did not take these 
steps.  The time to submit a letter is prior to convening of the 
original board, not after nonselection.  

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 18 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  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 an error or injustices.  The 
applicant argues that her officer performance report (OPR), 
closing on 3 Nov 11, should have actually closed out on 
3 Sep 11; however, we do not find the applicant’s arguments 
sufficient to conclude that she is the victim of an error or 
injustice.  In this respect, we note that while she cites 
certain provisions of the governing directive indicating that 
only 60 days of supervision were required of her new rater to 
close-out her OPR, other than argument and conjecture, she has 
presented no evidence for us to evaluate in determining if the 
provisions she cites are applicable to her situation.  In this 
respect, we note that while the applicant argues that her report 
should have closed out on 3 Sep 11 when her new rater attained 
60 days of supervision, she has presented no specific evidence 
that would allow us to ascertain if the close-out date of the 
contested report was erroneously calculated.  In this respect, 
we note that her submission contains no information whatsoever 
that would allow us to calculate the number of days supervision 
of her previous and new raters for the report in question.  
Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, 
we must presume that the close-out date of the contested OPR was 
correctly established.  Therefore, having no basis to conclude 
that the close-out date was erroneous, there is also no basis 
for us to conclude that the subsequent OPR would have closed out 
any earlier than it did or been a matter of record when the 
applicant was considered for promotion.  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 issue(s) 
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-2013-01799 in Executive Session on 4 Feb 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Aug 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 12 Sep 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair