- 

E B  0 9  

AIR FORCE B0,ARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY Rl$CORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
. 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 94-02521 (Case 2) 

1 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

,APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

1.  The  Promotion  Recommendation  Forms  (PRFs) he  received  for 
the  Calendar  Years  (CYs) 1992 and  1993 Central Major Selection 
Boards be declared void and removed from his records. 
2.  The  promotion  nonselections  to-the  grade  of  major  by  the 
CY92 and CY93 Major Selection Boards be set aside. 
3 .   He receive a direct promotion to the grade of major by the 
CY92C  Major  Selection  Board,  with  back  pay,  allowances  and 
entitlements. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The  Air  Combat  Command  (ACC) and  Air  Force  Materiel  Command 
(AFMC) Management Level Evaluation Boards  (MLEB) for the CY92 and 
CY93  Major  Central  Selection  Boards  awarded  an  illegal  rating 
called "Top Promote ."  This illegal, secret, system was operated 
in violation of law.  As  such, he was not only denied knowledge 
of this  'secret'  process when he was considered, but he was also 
denied the ability to compete within the process.  The result of 
such an arbitrary and  capricious  system was  a  defective record 
which  precluded  him  from  competing  in  a  'fair  and  equitable 
process'  as guaranteed by AFR 36-89. 
The  Promotion  Recommendation  (PRF)  process  is  contrary  to 
statute . 
The  promotion  recommendation  process  essentially 
eliminates any opportunity to appeal an inaccurate or unjust PRF. 
In 1993, he was  considered  for promotion to major by  a Special 
Selection Board  (SSB) for the CY92C Major Board.  This board was 
held  contrary  to  statute  since  there  were  only  four  voting 
members from the Active Duty List (ADL). 
The  board(s)  that  considered  his  record  used  a  computer model 
called the "Projected Order of Merit" (POM).  This was a "secret 
system" not  known by  the board  members,  but  only  known by  the 
board  president  and  support  staff. 
The  use  of  illegal 
mini-boards  substantially  violated  his  rights  for  fair 
consideration. 

4 

The promotion  selection boards  are  in violation  of  statute and 
Department of Defense (DoD) Directives. 

- r  

The  evidence  proves  significant  legal  errors  occurred  at  the 
central selection boards which considered his file for promotion. 
The  only  opinion  he  has  seen  which  discusses  board  procedures 
(AF/JAG opinion-Atch 2) is clearly directed at use of the "panel 
system"; however, even this opinion is based upon clearly flawed  * 
assumptions.  Therefore, this document can serve as no basis for 
Air  Force  to  justify  their  illegal  actions  as  the  evidence 
clearly  proves  each  assumption  is  wrong!  In  addition  to  the 
-defective record which led to his nonselection, the evidence also 
proves  the central selection boards themselves were  illegal and 
in direct violation of statute and directive. 
A  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) cannot  resolve  his  promotion 
nonselection on a "fair and equitable basis ."  His flawed record 
of  performance  had  a  direct  impact  on  the  senior  rater's 
assessment of  his  "performance based  potential ."  This process 
cannot  be  "recreated"  and  even  amendment  of  his  PRF  to 
communicate a "solid promote  recommendation''  would be  flawed as 
records within various commands were identified as among the "top 
PRFs" in  these  commands.  Therefore, he  asks  that  the  AFBCMR 
correct his  record to  reflect  selection for major  at  the CY92C 
Major Board  or at a minimum setting aside his nonselections  for 
major  to  allow  him  to  qualify  for  the  Special  Separation 
Bonus/Voluntary Separation Incentive (SSB/VSI). 
In support of his request, applicant submits a 22-page statement, 
with attachments. 
Applicant's  complete submission is appended at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

On 16 May 1981, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, 
Reserve of the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extended 
active  duty  on  23  August  1981. 
He  was  integrated  into  the 
Regular  Air  Force  on  10  November  1987  and  was  progressively 
promoted  to  the grade  of  captain, effective and with  a date  of 
rank of 23 August 1985. 
Applicant's  OPR  profile,  commencing  with  the  report  closing 
14 May 1992, follows: 

Period Endina 

#  14 May 92 
20  Dec 92 
# #   31 Aug  93 

Evaluation 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

2 

9 4 - 0 2 5 2 1  

4 

C 

#  Top report at the  time he was considered  and nonselected for 
promotion  to major  by  the CY92C  Central Major  Board  (P0492C), 
which  convened  on  7  December  1992.  The  applicant  received  a 
"Promote"  recommendation  on  his  Promotion  Recommendation  Form 
(PRF) for the CY92C Central Major Board. 
##  Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for 
promotion  to major  by  the  CY93B  Central Major  Board  (P0493B)' 
.'which convened  on  6 December  1993.  The  applicant  received  a  ' 
"Promote" recommendation on his PRF for the CY93B Central Major 
.Board . 
- r  -  Information maintained in the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals 
that the applicant had an established date of separation (DOS) of 
31 August 1994. 

AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 

- 

The  Evaluation  Boards  Branch,  AFMPC/DPMAEB,  reviewed  this 
application  and  recommended  denial. 
DPMAEB  stated  that  the 
applicant  alleges  the  Air  Combat  Command  (ACC) and  Air  Force 
Materiel Command  (AFMC) Management Level Evaluation Board  (MLEB) 
for the CY92 and CY93 Major Central Selection Boards awarded an 
illegal  rating called  "Top  Promote."  There  is no  such  rating 
system.  However, in an effort to discriminate among officers who 
receive  "Promote" recommendations, some  senior  raters  employ  a 
technique not addressed in AFR  36-10 in which they use comments 
such  as  "my  top  promote," and  "if  I  had  one  more  'Definitely 
Promote'  he'd  get it," and other comments intended to convey to 
the central selection board how they rank-ordered their officers. 
Some senior raters will include comments that indicate how well 
an  officer  ranked  at  an  MLEB  carry-over  competition  if  that 
officer was considered but did not receive a "DP"  recommendation 
from the MLEB.  The applicant contends that because officers who 
receive  "DP"  recommendations  by  senior  raters  or  MLEBs  are 
promoted  near  100%  of  the  time,  then  the  process  is  illegal 
because the promotion selection board is not making the decision. 
Promotion  recommendations  are  clear  signals  to  the  promotion 
selection board  about  the  officers'  duty  performance,  and  how 
these  officers  compare to their peers  within  a  clearly defined 
organization.  The  data  shows  that  the  officers  with  the  best 
duty performance are  receiving the top "DP"  recommendations and 
the  central selection boards  are  confirming  the  senior  raters' 
assessments by  promoting  these  officers based  on  their  entire 
selection  record.  If  the  promotion  recommendation  system  is 
working correctly, the officers who receive "DP"  recommendations 
should be promoted  at a rate near  100%.  The applicant has not 
provided any evidence that he was treated unfairly by the officer 
evaluation system (Exhibit C). 
The  Selection  Board  Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB,  stated  that  the 
applicant's  claims his Special Selection Board  (SSB) was contrary 

3 

9 4 - 0 2 5 2 1  

to  statute  since  there  were  only  four voting members  from the 
Active Duty List  (ADL).  This is incorrect.  The statute does not 
address the issue of voting/nonvoting members.  The statute does 
require a selection board to consist of five or more officers who 
The composition of the SSB that considered the 
are on the ADL. 
applicant was  in compliance with  the  statute.  DPMAB does  not 
agree  with  the  applicant's  opinions  and  interpretations  of 
statutes  and  fails  to  see  where  the  applicant  has  proven  his 
promotion  boards  were  "defective . " 
The  applicant  challenges 
long-standing  board  procedures  and  the  certification  of  board 
results by the board members.  Both the board procedures and the 
certification  issue  were  reviewed  as  late  as  February  1992  by 
="USAF/JAG and  were  found  to  be  in  compliance  with  applicable 
statutes .  The applicant quotes from DODD 1320.12 that "Separate 
selection boards shall be convened for each competitive category 
and  grade."  However, he  fails to quote  from other portions of 
DODD  1320 . 12  that  state: 
"Selection  boards  convened  for 
different  competitive  categories  OT  grades  may  be  convened 
concurrently."  and  "When  more  than  one  selection  board  is 
convened  to  recommend  officers  in  different  competitive 
categories or  grades  for promotion,  the written reports of the 
selection boards ... may be consolidated into a single package for 
submission  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Defense."  The  applicant 
claims  that  the  board@)  that  considered  his  record  used  a 
computer model called the Project Order of Merit  (POM) .  This is 
incorrect,  no  such  computer  model  existed  at  that  time. 
Applicant  also  faults  the  Selection  Board  scoring process  and 
cites  a  SASC  report  stating  "Such  manipulated  rescoring 
undermines  the  integrity  of  the  promotion  process  because  it 
provides discretion for the board's  results to be altered to the 
advantage of a particular officer not initially selected and to 
the  disadvantage  of  an  officer  initially  selected."  Applicant 
left out the next section of SASC report, which states: "The OSD 
did  not  find  similar  systematic  problems  with  respect  to 
selection  for  grades  0-6  and  below."  As  to  the  Below-the- 
Promotion  Zone  (BPZ),  all  board  members  scoring  the  same 
competitive  category  are  involved  in  the  BPZ  process. 
In 
summary, the  applicant offers no  supportable evidence that  the 
promotion  boards  in  question  were  in  violation  of  statute, 
directive or policy.  DPMAB recommended the application be denied 
(Exhibit D) . 
The  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFMPC/DPMAJ,  stated  that  the 
application  was  not  processed  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting 
Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  because  the  applicant 
did not provide  supporting statements from the senior rater who 
signed his  PRFs or  from the president of the MLEB  who  reviewed 
the  PRFs.  While  the  applicant  speculates his  record  was  at  a 
disadvantage  based  on  the  events  depicted,  it  should  be  noted 
that  central boards  evaluate the  entire  record  to  assess  whole 
person  factors such as  job  performance, professional qualities, 
depth  and  breadth  of  experience,  leadership  and  academic  and 
Professional Military Education  (PME).  DPMAJ concurred with the 

4 

94 - 0 2 5 2 1  

I 

advisory  opinions  from DPMAB  and  DPMAEB  and  recommended denial 
(Exhibit E). 
Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  HQ 
AFMPC/JA, addressed the allegations regarding illegal and secret 
MAJCOM  promotion  recommendation  procedures;  the  violation  of 
statute, DOD directive and Air Force regulation; and the illegal 
composition of central and special selection boards. 
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFMPC/JA, reviewed this application and 
recommended denial.  In JAIs view,  the applicant has  failed to 
present  relevant evidence of  any  error  or  injustice warranting 
-relief. 
In  JA's  opinion,  the  governing  regulation  does  not 
prohibit  the  promotion  recommendation process  used  by  the  Air 
Combat Command  (ACC).  JA indicated that while  that process  is 
not specifically authorized per se, the regulation does require 
in narrative form an assessment of the ratee's  performance based 
potential  to  support the  overall promotion  recommendation.  In 
the opinion of both the OPR and JA, delineating among "promotes" 
to describe a particular officer' s relative potential meets  the 
standards of this provision and violates neither the letter nor 
spirit of any portion of the regulation.  JA stated that there is 
no requirement that commands using such a  system supplement the 
It  is  JA's  opinion  that  the  stratified  promote 
regulation. 
system used by ACC does not constitute a "change to basic policy" 
-  for  which  a  supplement  would  be  prohibited.  JA  noted  that 
AF/CC,S  recent  officer  evaluation/promotion  system  review 
concluded  that  such  MAJCOM  stratified  systems  should  be 
eliminated-but  not  because  they  were  illegal;  rather,  it  was 
determined  that  they  created  unnecessary  perceived  fairness 
problems. 

As  to  the  alleged  improprieties  with  the  CY93  PRF  applicant 
received  from  Space  and  Missile  Center  (SMC) and  Air  Force 
Materiel Command  (AFMC), JA indicated that while not ruling out 
the  possibility  that  improper  procedures  might  have  been 
employed, the evidence in this file is insufficient to establish 
it. 
JA  stated  that  the  governing  regulation  does  not  require  the 
senior  rater  to  compare  the applicant's  revised PRF with  other 
records; rather,  that  individual is  the person who  must  verify 
the  inaccuracy  of  the  original  form  and  the  accuracy  of  any 
proposed correction.  The MLEB  President, on the other hand,  is 
required by regulation to "certify that compared to other records 
reviewed  during  the  evaluation process,  your  record would  have 
been  competitive  for  the  revised  PRF  assessment  if  the 
circumstances  which  caused  the  original  PRF  assessment had  not 
exi s t ed . " 
JA  indicated  that  it  is  true  that  records  of 
performance are not necessarily maintained  so as to be available 
to  an  MLEB  president  who  might  be  asked  to  make  such  a 
comparison.  JA disagrees with the applicant, however, that this 
fact renders a meaningful comparison impossible.  In JA' s view, 

5 

9 4 - 0 2 5 2 1  

the regulation provision does not prescribe a literal requirement 
to compare actual record of performance  files.  Rather, it is a 
requirement that the MLEB president compare an applicant's  record 
against the general standard by which records of performance in 
that particular  organization at  that  time would have  qualified 
for an upwardly revised recommendation. 

JA indicated that the applicant is confused and incorrect as to 
.his  conclusions  that  the  AFR  31-11  requirement  exceeds  the  4 
standard of proof required by 10 U.S.C.  1552 and is illegal. 
With  regards  to  applicant's  claims  that  the  PRF  process  is 
-contrary to statute because the Management Level Evaluation Board 
(MLEB) acts as a de facto promotion board, JA indicated that the 
very  high  rates of  selection for promotion  of officers with  DP 
recommendations was  fully expected and  consistent with the aims 
of the  officer evaluation program.  JA  stated that the  officer 
evaluation system is just that -  a system of evaluation and not 
one  of  ultimate  selection  for promotion.  JA  indicated  that  a 
"definitely promote" is not  required  for a promotion;  there  is 
always a significantly higher opportunity for promotion to every 
grade  than  the  percentage  of  officers  who  can  receive  a  DP 
recommendation.  Substantial numbers of officers with  "promote" 
recommendations have been selected for promotion.  JA stated that 
applicant's  argument that  officers  receiving  DP  recommendations 
constitutes  a  pre-selection  of  these  officers,  thereby 
effectively  usurping  the  selection  board  statutory  authority, 
ignores reality and is, in JA's  view, totally unsubstantiated. 

JA  stated  that  differentiating  among  promotion  candidates  is 
traditional and has always been legal.  The PRF process is merely 
the  latest  in  a  line  of  procedures  used  by  the  Air  Force  to 
assist  promotion  boards  in  identifying  the  best  qualified 
officers  for  promotion. 
Contrary  to  the  applicant's 
implications, JA  indicated that  an MLEB  does  not  determine who 
will  receive particular promotion  recommendations.  Rather,  the 
MLEB determines only DP allocations.  An officer' s senior rater 
still  must  apply  the  allocations  and  ultimately  decide  which 
officers  receive  which  recommendations  or  are  submitted  for 
"aggregation. 
With  regards  to  the  applicant' s  assertions  that  promotion 
selection  boards  are  contrary  to  Air  Force  regulation,  DOD 
Directives  and  statutes  (10 U.S.C.  616,  617)'  JA  stated  that 
there  is  no  provision  of  law  that  specifically  requires  each 
member  of  a promotion board  to personally  review and  score the 
record  of  each  officer  being  considered  by  the  board. 
JA 
indicated  it  is  clear  that  at  the  time  the  Defense  Officer 
Personnel Management Act  (DOPMA) was enacted, Congress was aware 
of  the  existence  of  promotion  board  panels  and  expressed  no 
problem  with  them.  JA  agrees  that  the  Air  Force  methodology 
differs from the other services and might seem unorthodox, being 
different and unique does not make it illegal.  JA indicated that 

6 

9 4 - 0 2 5 2 1  

the bottom line is that it does meet the statutory mandates and 
the applciant has failed to prove otherwise. 
In  JA's  opinion,  applicant's  argument  that  the  Air  Force 
promotion  board  was  illegal  because  the  Air  Force  convened  a 
single board consisting of panels rather than convening separate 
boards  as  required  by  the  DOD  Directive  is  without  merit.  JA 
.stated that  it  is  clear  the  directive's  purpose  in  requiring 
:separate boards  for each competitive category is to ensure that 
these  officers  compete  only  against  others  in  the  same 
competitive category  -  to  assure  fairness  and  compliance with 
Title 10, Chapter 36. 

. J  

JA  stated  that  the  applicant  has  offered  no  proof  that  the 
presidents of  any Air  Force  selection boards  acted  contrary to 
law or regulation. 
As  to  the  applicant's  claim  that A i s   nonselection  cannot  be 
remedied by  SSB consideration, it is JA's  opinion that the Air 
Force's 3SB procedure fully comports with the 10 U.S.C.  628(a) (2) 
requirement that an officer's  "record be compared with a sampling 
of the records of those officers of the same competitive category 
who were  recommended for promotion, and those officers who were 
not  recommended  for  promotion,  by  the  board  that  should  have 
JA  indicated  that  the  burden  is  on  the 
considered  him. ' I  
applicant to prove otherwise, and he has failed to do so. 
JA indicated that the applicant's  contention that too few active 
duty list  (ADL) members were  assigned  to his  SSB is incorrect. 
Five of the six members of the board were on ADL; the fact that 
one was the board president does not constitute a violation of 10 
U.S.C.  612 or any other statute or regulation. 
As  to  applicant's  request for direct promotion,  JA  stated that 
both  Congress  and  DOD have made  clear their  intent  that errors 
ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved through the use 
of  special  selection boards.  JA  agrees  with  AF/JAG  that  the 
Board  is  not  in  the  appropriate  position  to  grant  a  direct 
promotion-that  in  promotion  matters,  the  Board' s  statutory 
authority should be limited to correcting military records which 
may  have  affected  the  promotion  process,  and  recommending  SSB 
consideration  in  appropriate  cases. 
JA  indicated  that  the 
applicant competed at the CY92 and CY93 promotion boards with a 
"promote"  recommendation  and  if  his  record  were  truly  that 
deserving,  he  could  have-and  would  have-been  selected  for 
promotion. 
A complete copy of the JA evaluation i s  appended at Exhibit F. 

7 

9 4 - 0 2 5 2 1  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions from AFMPC/DPMAEB, 
AFMPC/DPMAB,  and AFMPC/DPMAJ,  and submitted additional documents 
entitled  "Evidentiary  Support:  Illegal  Selection  Boards  and 
Irrelevant  AF/JAG  Opinion"  (Appendix  A) ,  and  "Evidentiary 
Support :  Illegally Consolidated Selection Boards"  (Appendix B) . 
The  applicant  indicated  that  the  evidence  in  the  form  of 
documents created by the Air Force themselves clearly proves the 
Air  Force  selection  boards  violate  10  USC,  Sections  616,  617 
provisions; the findings of the 22 Feb 92 AF/JAG opinion are n o t  
relevant  to  the  grounds  for  relief  presented  in  his 
-petition/rebuttal.  Therefore, he asks the Board to set aside the 
action by the illegal board. 
The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  from AFMPC/JA  and 
indicated that the evidence proves, beyond any doubt not only the 
general  illegality  of  the  top  promote  system,  but  more 
specifically,  the  unequivocal  illegality  of  the  top  promote 
system  within  AFMC.  As  it  is  impossible  to  receive  fair  and 
equitable  consideration  via  an  SSB,  both  due  to  the  illegal 
operations of various MAJCOM  MLEBs  as well  as  a  PRF correction 
process tainted by illegally gained information, he requests that 
the  Board  correct  his  PRFs  to  reflect  a  "Definitely  Promote" 
recommendation.  He  further concludes  that  Air  Force  selection 
boards violate the requirements of 10 USC, Section 616 and  617. 
The  Air  Force  is  required  to  follow  the  law,  directives,  and 
regulations, and failure to do so  is fatal to the deviant action. 
Therefore, nonselections incurred at illegal selection boards are 
without effect and must be set aside.  AFMPC/JA does not dispute 
any of his comments concerning board operations.  AFMPC/JA avoids 
discussion of the requirements of statute.  The evidence is clear 
that  the  results  of  the  boards  that  considered  his  file  for 
promotion  did  not  meet  the  minimum  requirements  of  law  and 
violated DoD Directive.  In fact, the certification process used 
by Air Force selection boards is nothing more than an attendance 
roster!  While AFMPC/JA  claimed  "none of  the  duties prescribed 
for  board  presidents"  violated  DoDD  1320.12,  they  declined 
discussion  of  the  issues  and  provided  no  evidence  to  support 
their  view.  Therefore,  he  concludes  that  the  evidence  proves 
direct promotion is within the AFBCMR's  authority and  that SSBs 
cannot  provide  a  full  let  alone  fitting  measure  of  relief. 
Therefore, he  requests the Board direct his  record be  corrected 
to reflect selection for promotion to major as if selected by the 
CY92 Major Board. 
Applicant's  response to the evaluations is appended at Exhibit H. 

8 

9 4 - 0 2 5 2 1  

. 

If 

provided by existing 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1  The applicant has exhausted all remedies 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
-3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has 
been  presented  to 
Ziemonstrate the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We  ' 
find insufficient evidence to support applicant's  request to void 
the Promotion Recommendation Forms  (PRFs) for the Calendar Years 
(CYs) 1992  and  1993 Major  Boards  or  to  upgrade  the  PRFs to  a 
'*'"Definitely Promote . 
Applicant has failed to provide sufficient 
evidence  showing  that  the  recommendations he  received  were  in 
error  or  unjust.  Noticeably  absent  are  statements  of  support 
from the senior raters of the PRFs in question and the presidents 
of the MLEBs or evidence showing that those individuals did not 
have  access  to  adequate  informatien  on  which  to  base  their 
decisions  concerning  the  award  of  a  proper  promotion 
recommendations  when  comparing  the  applicant's  record  of 
performance  with  those  of  his  peers.  In the  absence  of  such 
evidence,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  conclude  that  the 
promotion  recommendations  he  received  were  inaccurate.  As  to 
applicant's  contentions concerning  the  statutory  compliance  of 
central  selection  boards,  the  legality  of  the  promotion 
recommendation process, and  the legality of the  SSB  process, in 
our  opinion, have  no merit.  The detailed comments provided by 
the appropriate offices adequately address these issues.  In view 
of  the  above  findings,  we  are  in  complete  agreement  with  the 
comments and  recommendations made  by  the  appropriate Air  Force 
offices and  adopt  the  rationale expressed  as the basis  for our 
decision that the applicant has  failed to sustain his burden of 
establishing  that  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an 
injustice. 
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  that  the  evidence presented  did  n o t  
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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  n o t  
considered with this application. 

9 

94-02521 

. 

1 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on  15  December  1997,  under  the provisions  of 
AFI 36- 2603: 

Mr. Charles E.  Bennett, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member 
Mr. John L. Robuck, Member 

.,The following documentary evidence was considered: 

4 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E . 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 

DD Form 149,  dated 3 1  May 94,  w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAEB, dated 27  Jun 94. 
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAB, dated 1 Jul 94. 
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJ, dated 17  Aug 94. 
Letter, AFMPC/JA, dated 1 6  May 95. 
Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 22  Aug 94  and 3 1  May 95. 
Letter from applicant,  dated 23  Sep 94,  with 
Appendix A and B, and letter from applicant, 
dated 30 Jun 95,  w/atchs. 

-CHARLES 

E. BENNETT 

Panel Chairman 

10 

9 4 - 0 2 5 2 1