ADDENDUM TO 
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF:    DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1981-01237 
    INDEX CODE:  131.09 
 
       COUNSEL:  NONE 
 
       HEARING DESIRED: NO 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
The AFBCMR promote him to the grade of colonel (0-6). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
RESUME OF CASE 
 
Applicant joined the Regular Air Force in 1958 and was progressively promoted to the grade of captain with a date of rank (DOR) of 4 Dec 62.  He met the Fiscal Year 1969 (FY69) Major Selection Board and was selected to the temporary grade of major.  On 12 Jul 68, subsequent to his selection, he was found physically disqualified and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) where he remained until his restoration to active duty on 24 Feb 71.  He was ordered to active duty in the grade of captain.  He was selected by the Calendar Year 1972 (CY72) Regular Air Force (RegAF) Major Selection Board and promoted effective 4 Jun 72 with a DOR of 1 Oct 71.   
 
Since his restoration to active duty in 1971 the applicant has filed numerous applications with the AFBCMR.  All of his filings revolve, in some fashion, around the fact that he should have been restored to active duty from the TDRL in 1971 in the grade of major rather than captain.  His contentions over the years have all pointed to Air Force errors that have, in some way, affected his promotion opportunities in such a negative fashion as to have kept him from being promoted to major and lieutenant colonel in a timely fashion and ultimately led to his twice being non-selected for promotion to colonel prior to his 1982 retirement.   
 
The applicant’s records have been corrected many times over the years in an attempt to provide him full and fitting relief.  The following summarizes each filing along with the Board’s action: 
 
1. His records were corrected on 18 Mar 74 to show he was restored to active duty from the TDRL in the grade of major with an effective date of 24 Feb 71 and a DOR of 1 Jul 68. 
 
2. As he was considered and denied promotion to lieutenant colonel (Lt Col) by selection boards in 1974, 1975, and 1976, he submitted a second application requesting his non-selects to Lt Col be set aside, his DOR to major be changed to its former date of 24 Feb 71, and his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) for the period ending 31 Jul 75 be changed to reflect a more favorable review by the Indorsing Official.  Only the removal of his three non-selections to Lt Col was approved.  
 
3. A third application in 1977 requested certain rating factors of an OER closing 23 Dec 74 be upgraded; certain indorsements to the OER be substituted with indorsements he provided; and a letter of evaluation (LOE) attached to the OER be removed.  On 30 Jun 78, his requests were approved and his record was corrected. 
 
4. A fourth application requested that his DOR to Lt Col be adjusted to reflect selection by the FY77 board, or, in the alternative, his DOR to Lt Col be adjusted by four days to allow him to compete in the primary zone for colonel during the Oct 80 selection process.  His request was denied. 
 
5. A fifth application, decided in Jul 86, requested the OERs rendered for the periods ending 23 Aug 71 and 28 Apr 72 be corrected to show his grade as major rather than captain and that his records be further corrected to show he was selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Oct 80 selection Board – or that he be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel.  The Board granted only that portion of his request dealing with changing his grade to read major rather than captain on the noted OERs.  However, the Board, aware of the earlier action that set aside his non-selects to the grade of Lt Col noted that setting aside non-selections without benefit of a subsequent SSB did not constitute full and fitting relief. Notwithstanding the previous reconsiderations for promotion the applicant had been afforded, the Board directed his record be corrected to change his grade on the noted OERs to major; that he be considered for promotion to Lt Col by SSBs for the Apr 74 selection board and any other subsequent selection boards for which the corrected OERs were a matter of record; that, if selected for retroactive promotion to the grade of Lt Col, he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSBs for the selection boards he would have met in the zone based upon his selection for retroactive promotion to Lt Col.  The board further directed that, should he not be selected for retroactive promotion to Lt Col, he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB for the Jun 81 colonel selection board and any subsequent boards for which the noted OERs were a matter of record.  He was not selected for retroactive promotion to Lt Col, nor was he selected for promotion to the grade of Col by any of the SSBs. 
 
6. He accepted the fact he had not been promoted by SSB based on the Air Force Personnel Center’s (AFPC’s) assurance his “corrected record had been constructed to appear as it would have been had it met the original board(s).”  In 2004, he found out his records had not, in fact, been complete.  They were missing several pieces of critical information that the 1987 and follow-on Colonel SSBs could not have seen.  The information was included on several AF Forms 705, Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Recommendation Reports, known at the time as “closed forms.”  “Closed forms” were discontinued effective 1 Jul 81 as, while they were considered somewhat useful, they did not add substantially to the information available for the promotion process.  He learned in 2006, that Title 10, United States Code (USC) Section 619, required three years time-in-grade (TIG) as a Lt Col before members were eligible to be considered for promotion to colonel.  He contends he had only one year TIG as a Lt Col when he was first considered for promotion to colonel.  Therefore, he resubmitted his request for direct promotion to colonel by the AFBCMR.  On 19 Nov 08, the AFBCMR denied his request reiterating their 1986 finding that the applicant had not overcome the rationale expressed in the 1986 decision concerning his request for direct promotion to colonel. 
 
7.  On 4 Feb 09, the applicant again requested reconsideration of his appeal for direct promotion via a letter to the Executive Director of the AFBCMR.  He noted several apparent errors on the Board’s Addendum to the Record of Proceedings (ROP) dated 7 Jan 09, but was most adamant that evidence he had provided was either missing from or was not mentioned in the Addendum to the ROP.  As such, it appears he has incorrectly assumed the Board did not see or consider all of the available evidence.  As is indicated under the “Applicant Contends That” section of the addendum and within the paragraph that lists the documentation provided to the Board, is listed all the evidence he submitted that the Board did see and consider.   
 
With regard to the 4 Feb 09 letter, the AFBCMR staff, after careful and deliberate review, has determined the evidence provided does not meet the requirement for reconsideration as it is considered to be an additional argument on the existing evidence of record.  The reiteration of facts previously addressed by the Board, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for reconsideration.  Therefore, his request for reconsideration does not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board.   
 
8. He submitted an additional letter dated 1 Sep 09, wherein he provides supplementary evidence he contends was not available for consideration by the indorsing official of his OER ending 30 Apr 79.  He contacted his indorsing official for that OER period and provided two documents – an LOA dated Nov 78 and an End-of-Tour Summary dated Apr 79 - for his review.  The indorsing official, a retired major general, provides a Memo for the Record (MFR) wherein he states that had he been aware of the two additional pieces of evidence at the time he indorsed the applicant’s OER, he would have indorsed the OER differently. In fact, the general provides a replacement indorsment for the noted OER and asks that it replace the indorsment of record.   
 
The applicant's complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibits L through N.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
After again thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation provided in support of this appeal, i.e., a statement from the indorsing official of an OER written 31 years ago, we are not persuaded the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice that warrants his direct promotion to the grade of colonel.  In that regard, we do not find the additional evidence the applicant has provided meets the criteria for further consideration of his case.  Rather than provide new and relevant evidence not available when his case was originally decided, he continues to provide additional arguments in response to the actions taken by the Board.  Further, in reviewing his case in totality, we believe he has been provided full and fitting relief.  Since he has exhausted his administrative remedies, we note there is no bar to his seeking further relief through the Federal court system.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant the additional relief sought by the applicant. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; 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 20 April 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 , Panel Chair 
 , Member  
 , Member 
 
  
The following documentary evidence with regard to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1981-01237 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 25 Apr 05, 
    with exhibits A through G. 
    Exhibit I.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 08, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 15 Sep 08. 
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 08, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 08, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit M.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Feb 09, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit N.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Sep 09, w/atch. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
       Panel Chair