AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96- 02926 
COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His nonselections for promotion to colonel be set aside. 

He be reinstated to active duty retroactive to 30 September 1993, 
the day before his retirement date, with restoration of back pay 
and benefits. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The CY91 Colonel Board and the CY93 Lieutenant Colonel Selective 
Early  Retirement  Board  (SERB) were  conducted  in  violation  of 
governing statutes, directives and  instructions.  His  selection 
for early retirement should not have occurred. 

His selection for selective early retirement was illegal because 
his  nonselection  for promotion  that  made  him  eligible  for  the 
SERB was illegal. 

In support of his  request, applicant submits a 15-page Brief by 
counsel,  with  additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues 
cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

On 7 June 1970, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, 
Reserve of the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extended 
active  duty  on  15  October  1970.  He  was  integrated  into  the 
Regular Air Force on 9 August 1978 and was progressively promoted 
to the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective and with a date of 
rank of 1 March 1987. 

Applicant  was  considered  and  nonselected  for  promotion  to  the 
grade of colonel by the CY 1991B  (9 September 1991) and CY 1992A 
(6 July 1992) Central Colonel Boards.  As a result of not being 
promoted by  the colonel boards, applicant was considered and not 
selected for early retirement by  the CY  1993 Lieutenant Colonel 
Selective  Early  Retirement  Board  (SERB),  which  convened  on 
20 January 1993. 

.- 

The following is a  resume of applicant's  OPR  ratings subsequent 
to his promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel: 

Evaluation 

# 
# #  

_ I  

1-1-1 
1-1-1 

MS 
MS 
MS 

Meets Standards (MS) 

Period Endinq 
5 May 87 
5 Apr 
88 
5 Apr 
89 
5 Apr 
90 
5  Apr 
91 
92 
5  Apr 
time he was  considered and nonselected  for 
at the 
by  the CY91B Central Colonel  Board, which 
colonel 
September 1991. 

#  Top report 
promotion to 
convened on 9 
# #   Top report at the time he was co-nsidered  and nonselected for 
promotion  to  colonel by  the CY92A Central Colonel Board, which 
convened on 6  July 1992. 
On 30 September 1993, the applicant was relieved from active duty 
and retired effective 1 October 1993 in the grade of lieutenant 
colonel, under the provisions of AFR  35-7  (voluntary retirement 
for years of service established by law).  He served a total of 
22 years, 11 months and 16 days of active service for retirement 
and 23 years, 3  months and 24 days of service for basic pay. 

f 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION : 
The  Directorate of  Personnel  Program Management,  HQ AFMPC/DPPB, 
reviewed  this  application  and  stated  that  they  disagree  with 
counsel's  contention that  the applicant's  selection boards were 
in violation of Sections 616 and 617, 10 U . S . C .  
DPPB indicated 
that  Air  Force  legal  representatives  have  reviewed  their 
procedures  on  several  occasions during  the  past  few  years  and 
have determined those procedures comply with applicable statutes 
and policy. 

As  to counsel's  attempt to discredit  the  scoring scale used  by 
the Air Force, DPPB indicated that the scoring scale is from 6 to 
10 in half point increments.  Board members are briefed to try to 
apply a  7.5 score to an "average" record and to try to use  the 
entire  scoring  range  throughout  the  evaluation  process. 
Recognizing that the scoring of records is a subjective process, 
individuals  may  have  a  slightly  different  definition  of  what 
constitutes an  "average" record.  DPPB  stated  that  as  long  as 
each board member applies their individual standard consistently 
throughout the scoring process, each consideree will  get a  fair 
and equitable evaluation. 

With regard to counsel's  assertion that the post-board action of 
preparing  an  alpha  select  list  of  the  board's  recommendations 
constitutes some illegal action and voids the entire board, DPPB 

2 

96-0292 6 

stated that the alpha select list is merely a recapitulation of 
the selects off of the board's orders of merit  in alpha sequence 
vice numerical sequence. 

DPPB  noted  that  counsel  implied  that  another  post-board 
function-preparing the final board report for presentation to the 
approving authority -  was the reason applicant was not  selected 
for promotion.  DPPB stated that DoD Directive 1320.09  directed 
separate  promotion  boards  be  conducted  and  also  authorized 
conducting  those  separate  boards  concurrently.  The  directive 
also authorized consolidating the results of  the boards  into a 
single package for presentation to the approving authority.  DPPB 
indicated  that  this  has  been  done  for  many  years  without 
challenge or objection by Air Force legal representatives.  Title 
Section  621,  states  that  officers  in  the  same 
10,  U . S . C . ,  
competitive  category  shall  compete  among  themselves  for 
promotion.  DPPB stated that is exactly what happens on Air Force 
promotion boards.  The applicant competed only against other line 
officers. 

4 

DPPB  disagrees  with  counsel's  contention  that  the  board 
president's  role violates DoDD  restrictions.  DPPB  stated that 
the  actions/responsibilities  of  each  board  president  are  in 
compliance with applicable directives and policy. 

DPPB  indicated  that  counsel's statements  concerning  Air  Force 
SERBS employing the panel  concept  in which  the majority  of  the 
records of the SERB candidates were considered by only one panel 
are incorrect or misleading.  DPPB stated that when more than one 
panel scored a competitive category on a SERB, each panel had an 
equal share of the records, L e .  ,  if there were two panels, then 
each would have approximately 50 percent.  The Air Force concedes 
that one panel may have as much as 51 percent and the other panel 
have as little as 4 9   percent since one of  the two panels has to 
be  the  recipient of  the  last block  of  20  records.  It  that  is 
what counsel means when he states !'the majority of the records of 
the SERB candidates were considered by only one panel," then DPPB 
poses no objection.  DPPB indicated that counsel's statement "The 
board  only  reviewed those  few records at  the  cut-off point" is 
incorrect.  The quota f o r   the SERB in question was 30 percent of 
the eligibles.  After panel  1 scored their half  of  the  records 
and  an  order of  merit  was  finalized, the bottom  40 percent  of 
that  order  of  merit  was  moved  to  panel  2  for  their  scoring. 
Likewise, the bottom 40 percent  of panel  2 was moved  to panel  1 
for their scoring.  The end result was an order of merit by all 
board  members  for  the  bottom  40 percent.  The  quota  was  then 
applied against that order of merit and the individuals selected 
for retirement were identified.  The conversion from a numerical 
order of merit to an alpha select list was completed post-board, 
just like a promotion board. 

DPPB  indicated that  counsel  is  incorrect  in his  assertion that 
!!the illegal process used  at  original  promotion boards  did  not 
allow board members to form the required consensus to take away 

3 

9 6 - 0 2 9 2 6  

. 

the BPZ promotions from the I/APZ quota."  After the BPZ  order of 
merit was finalized, the record of the lowest possible BPZ  select 
was  reviewed  by  every  board  member  that  scored  the  line 
competitive category.  The BPZ record was compared to the number 
one I/APZ nonselect of  each panel to determine if the quality of 
the  BPZ  record was better  than that  of  the number one  1  I/APZ 
The  promotion  boards  in  question  found  the  BPZ 
nonselects. 
record  better  each  time  and  the  full  BPZ  quota  was  used. 
Therefore, counsel's claim that the SSB process is faulty because 
the central boards were illegal is without merit. 

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. 
The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFPC/JA,  reviewed this application 
and  recommended  the  application  be  denied. 
JA  stated  that 
counsel  argues  that  promotion  board  panels  do  not  act  as  the 
single  "board"  required  by  10  U.SrC.,  611(a),  and  that  they 
instead operate  independently of  one  another, thereby rendering 
as impossible the promotion recommendation by  Ira majority of  the 
members of the board"  mandated by 10 U.S.C. 616 or the resulting 
certification required by  10  U.S.C. 617.  As  noted previously, 
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.  The House 
Armed  Services  Committee  Report  (97-141) that  accompanied  the 
Defense  Officer  Personnel  Management  Act  (DOPMA)  Technical 
Corrections Act  (P.L. 97-22) specifically references panels as a 
type  of  administrative  subdivision  of  selection  boards. 
Consequently, it  is  clear  that  at  the  time  DOPMA was  enacted, 
Congress was certainly aware of the existence of promotion board 
panels and expressed no problem with them.  JA indicated that, in 
essence, a majority  of  the board  must  recommend an officer for 
promotion  and  each  member  is  required  to  certify  that  the 
corporate board  has  considered each  record, and  that  the board 
members,  in  their  opinion, have  recommended those  officers who 
"are best qualified for promotion.'I  The members are not required 
to  reach this point  through an  individual examination of  every 
record, although they may do so.  Rather, based on their overall 
participation in the board's deliberations, and the fact that the 
process  involves  the  random  assignment  of  officer  selection 
records  to  panels  to  achieve  relatively  equal  quality  and 
procedures  to  insure  that  the  quality  of  the  records of  those 
officers  recommended  for  selection  among  the  panels  is 
essentially identical, the members are in a position to honestly 
certify  that  the  process  in  which  they  participated  properly 
identified, based  on the record before  them, those officers who 
were  best  qualified  for  promotion.  In  JA's opinion, that  is 
enough to assure compliance with all the statutory requirements. 
Notwithstanding the opinion cited by applicant in Roane v. U.S., 
another judge from the United States Court of Federal Claims has 
held  contra, determining  that  the  Air  Force's promotion  system 
fully complies with the law  (see Small v. U.S.). 

4 

9 6 - 0 2 9 2 6  

JA  provided  the  relevant  portion  of  the  DoD  Directive  1320.9 
(later DoDD 1320.12) concerning counsel's allegation that the Air 
Force violated DoD Directive 1320.09 by convening panels and not 
separate  promotion  boards  to  consider  the  various  competitive 
categories. 
JA  indicated  that  counsel  argues  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.  In JA's opinion, this argument is 
-,without merit. 
It  is  clear  that  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.  JA stated that the Air Force's competitive 
category  "panels ,  which are  convened concurrently as permitted 
by  the  Directive, fully  accomplish -this  stated  purpose;  L e . ,  
members  of  each  competitive  category  compete  within  their 
respective  "panel  only  against  other  officers  of  that  same 
category. 

JA disagrees with counsel's assertions that the board president's 
duties violate DoD Directive 1320.12.  JA stated that the duties 
prescribed  for  board  presidents  by  Air  Force  directives  do 
require the president to perform several critical duties relative 
to board  scoring.  Those duties do not, however, in any manner, 
constrain  the  board  from  recommending  for  promotion  the  best 
qualified  among  the  fully qualified  officers  being  considered. 
Counsel has offered no proof  that  the president  of  this or any 
Air  Force  selection  board  has  ever  acted  contrary  to  law  or 
regulation.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary, the 
board president  and  other members  of  the board  are entitled to 
the  presumption  that  they  carried  out  their  duties  and 
responsibilities properly and according to law. 

JA  indicated  that  counsel  claims  the  SERB  that  selected  the 
applicant was  "illegal. I' 
JA stated that counsel is incorrect in 
his  statement that  "SERBS  are conduced using the  same selection 
boards as promotion boards  (10 U . S . C .   611)."  SERBS  are conducted 
under  10 U. S : C   611 (b) ,  whereas promotion boards are governed by 
10 U. S. C .   611 (a) . 
Consequently, counsel ' s arguments concerning 
violations of Sections 616 and 617 of Title 10 are inapplicable, 
as  they  apply  only  to  10.  U.S.C.  611(a)  promotion  boards. 
Counsel also contends that the SERB consisted of two panels that 
operated  autonomously,  thereby  precluding  compliance  with  the 
statutory requirement for action by  !'the board"  as a whole.  JA 
stated  that  this  argument  is  both  factually  and  analytically 
wrong. 
Counsel  is  wrong  that  the  two  SERB  panels  acted 
autonomously.  As  verified  by  DPPB,  the  procedure  used  in  the 
SERB  included  a  swap between  the  two panels  of  the  records of 
those  officers  preliminarily  identified  for  selection. 
This 
process  insured  that  all  board  members  were  in  agreement  that 
those  officers  selected  for  early  retirement  were  the  correct 
ones according to the law and the Secretary's instructions. 

5 

9 6 - 0 2 9 2 6  

_ ,  

As to the contention that a Special Selection Board  (SSB) would 
first  require  applicant's reinstatement to  active  duty,  citing 
Doyle v.  United  States, 599  F.2d  984  (1979) and DoD  Directive 
1320.11.  JA stated that  Doyle is inapplicable, as it predates 
the  Defense  Officer  Personnel  Management  Act  (DOPMA) and  the 
statutorily  prescribed  remedy  provided  by  DOPMA  --  the  SSB. 
Further, in JA's opinion, an officer, who has been separated or  ' 
retired, can be  afforded  SSB  consideration without  placing  the 
officer back on the active duty list.  Such authority is clearly 
.provided the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  under  Section  628  of 
'Title 10,  U.S.C.  This  conclusion  is  firmly  supported by  the 
legislative  history  of  the  section,  H.R.  Rep  No.  1462,  96th 
Congress, 2d  Session  (1980).  In the  context  of  the  statutory 
scheme,  the  term  llofficerll applies  to  the  status  of  the 
individual  at  the  time  of  the  original promotion  consideration 
when  the  error  or  injustice  occurred.  JA  indicated  that  the 
status of the individual at the time of the SSB does not govern, 
but rather, the status at the time of the error which led to the 
improper consideration at the original promotion board---when, of 
necessity,  the  individual would  have  been  on  active  duty.  JA 
stated  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  clearly  has  the 
independent  statutory  authority  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  8013  to 
convene an SSB  to consider an officer who is not currently on the 
active  duty  list. 
JA  indicated  that  DoDD  1320.11  does  not 
prohibit the use of S S B s   to consider separated officers who were 
on  the  -active duty  list  at  the  time  they  were  originally 
considered for promotion. 

In summary, JA  stated that  the applicant has  failed to present 
relevant evidence proving the existence of any error or injustice 
prejudicial  to  his  substantial  rights  with  respect  to  his 
promotion nonselection or his  selection for early retirement by 
the SERB.  Consequently, JA  recommended that the application be 
denied. 

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Counsel  reviewed  the  advisory  opinions  and  indicated  that  the 
main problem  with  the  advisory opinions  is their utter  lack of 
supporting evidence.  Counsel stated that  during  the  course  of 
litigation in Roane v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 168  (1996), the 
Air  Force  represented  that  no  documentation  of  Air  Force 
promotion board procedures  existed, and  that  some  (particularly 
that pertaining to the Projected Order of Merit  [POM]) had been 
destroyed.  In AFBCMR Docket No. 91-01524, the applicant, Major 
L. W. N---, had alleged that promotion board members were totally 
ignorant  of  the  POM  and  the  role  it  played  in  the  promotion 
process. 
An  AFMPC  advisory  opinion  represented  just  the 
opposite,  deriding  Major  N---'s 
Absent  any 
documentary evidence  of  promotion  board  procedures, Major  N--- 

allegations. 

6 

96-02926 

Counsel  , 

was unable to challenge the accuracy of the advisory opinion and 
the  AFBCMR  accepted  the  advisory  opinions'  representations  as 
true  in  denying  relief. 
In  the  federal  court  litigation  of 
another related case, however, the applicant was able to depose 
Brigadier General H. J. I---, Chief of the Promotion Secretariat, 
at  the  relevant  time.  Gen  I---  confirmed that Major N---  had 
been  right  all  along  about  the  secrecy  of  the  POM. 
stated that the author of the DPPB  advisory opinion in this case 
confirms  the  same  lack  of  evidence  of  SERB  procedures.  The 
!'essence of  those  procedures/'  as  represented  in  the  advisory 
Jopinion, has obviously come from somewhere.  But no documentation 
exists  and  there  is  no  suggestion  that  the  advisory  opinion 
author is testifying from his own personal knowledge of the SERB 
procedures  that  were  used  nine  years  ago. 
Under  these 
circumstances, the  advisory opinion can amount  to no more  than 
either a  summarization of what  someone else told  the author or 
the author's own idle speculation.  - 
Counsel stated that the advisory opinions do not dispute that 10 
U.S.C. Sections 616  and  617 require consensus among  'la majority 
of the members of the board" about the officers to be recommended 
for promotion.  Nor do they dispute that the records of eligible 
officers  were  divided  among  a  number  of  autonomous  panels  for 
their  independent  review  and  that  each  panel  "recommended1' 
officers  from among those  that  were  distributed to  it, without 
any record being considered by  Ita majority of the members of the 
board. 
The advisory opinions maintain, however, that majority 
consensus  is  reached  after-the-fact when  the  members  I1certify1' 
the board report on the basis of their lloverall participation in 
the  board's  deliberations"  rather  than  on  their  actual 
consideration  of  the  recommended  officers'  records. 
Counsel 
indicated that promotion board members do not know the  "material 
facts"  because  they  are  never  told  which  officers  are  being 
recommended.  Nor  can  they act  on  the  basis  of  their  lloverall 
participation in the board's deliberations11 because they are kept 
intentionally unaware of the POM  and the role it placed in those 
officers being  so identified.  The members' unknowing signature 
of  a  blank  piece  of  paper  cannot  retroactively  satisfy  the 
requirements of  10 U.S.C. Sections 616 and  617  that officers be 
found "fully qualifiedf1 and recommended as "best qualified" by 
majority of the members of the board." 

Counsel stated that nothing in DPPB's explanation of  the scoring 
process  will  change the  mathematical  reality  that  that  process 
precludes the majority  "consensuses"  demanded by Section 616 and 
617.  Because there  is no majority  consensus regarding how  the 
candidates are ranked on the OOM, a vote to determine whether the 
highest-scoring nonselect candidate is "fully qualified" does not 
translate  into a majority  consensus that every candidate ranked 
higher on the OOM is also "fully qualified." 

Counsel  stated  that  neither  advisory  opinion  addressed  the 
applicant's claim  that  the Air  Force promotion process violates 
the  requirement  that  eligible  officers  receive  centralized 

7 

96-02926 

review. 
Counsel  indicated  that  Air  Force  line  officers  are 
considered  by  one  of  a  number  of  autonomous  panels,  with  no 
centralization in the process and their fate often depending on 
DoDD  1320.9 
which  panel  happened  to  review  their  record. 
requires  each  separate  promotion  board,  even  if  all  were  held 
concurrently,  to  submit  a  separate  report  that  is  signed  and 
certified by the members of t h a t  board.  Counsel stated this does 
not happen in the Air  Force.  Members of both  line and nonline 
boards  sign  a  singular  board  record,  purporting  to  certify 
officers  in  various  competitive  categories who  few  played  any 
role  in  "recommending."  As  a  result,  DoD,  the  President, the 
-'United States Senate, and  others who  rely on board  reports are 
given  a  false  impression  about  the  size  of  the  board,  its 
composition,  and  the  reliability  of  the  recommendations 
purportedly being made. 
As to the SERB  procedures, Counsel directed attention to the lack 
of any support that both panels considered the records of those 
officers  who  were  recommended  for  early  retirement. 
Counsel 
stated  even  accepting  that  representation as  true,  it  confirms 
the applicant's  claim that the SERB  was conducted in violation of 
the Secretary's  written  instructions on the subject.  According 
to  the  advisory opinions'  description of  the  process,  the  only 
consensus  reached  by  "a  majority  of  the members  of  the  board" 
pertained  to  the  members  who  were  recommended  for  separation. 
Counsel  indicated that  the  SERB  approached  its  task  backwards. 
Even if "all of the board members saw and scored the records of 
every  officer  selected  for  early  retirement,"  there  was  no 
majority consensus on what the Secretary was interested in -  the 
qualifications of the officers recommended for r e t e n t i o n .  
With regard to Special Selection Board  ( S S B )   eligibility, Counsel 
stated  that  the  applicant's  position  is  based  on  DoDD  1320.9, 
paragraph  B2,  which  states  in  no  uncertain  terms  that  only 
"officers  on  the  Active  Duty  List"  are  eligible  for  SSB 
consideration.  Notwithstanding JA's  strained  interpretation of 
"the  statutory  scheme''  to  reach  the  opposite  conclusion,  the 
applicant's  position is consistent with  10 U.S.C.,  Section 6 2 8 ' s  
use of the word  "officer" rather than "former officer" and with 
the  title  of  Chapter  3 6   of  which  Section  628  is  a  part  - 
"Promotion, Separation, and Involuntary Retirement of Officers on 
the  A c t i v e   Duty  L i s t . "   More to the point, it is consistent with 
Congress'  stated  intent  in  Section  1 4 5 0 2 .  
Counsel  stated  that 
JA's  suggestion to  read  Section  628  as  if  it  were  written  like 
Section  1 4 5 0 2   would  override  a  distinction  that  Congress 
specifically intended.  Counsel  indicated that  the  applicant's 
position is well-founded in the law. 

Counsel indicated that for all the reasons stated in this appeal, 
the applicant should be granted the full relief sought. 
Counsel's  complete response is attached at Exhibit F. 

8 

96-0292 6 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  ' 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record, we  are  unpersuaded  that  the 
applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. 
'Evidence has  not  been  provided  which  would  lead  us  to believe 
that the applicant's consideration for promotion to the grade of 
colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year  (CY)  1991B  selection  board  was 
contrary to the pertinent provisions of the governing regulation, 
which  implement  the  law. 
The  applicant  asserts  that  his 
consideration for promotion was contrary to the provisions of  10 
USC,  Sections  616  and  617. 
This  issue  has  been  thoroughly 
explored in the advisory opinion prepared for review by military 
legal authority and we agree with their assessment of  this case. 
The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  which  successfully 
disputes  the  JA  interpretation of  law  or  showing  that  he  was 
inequitably  treated  when  compared  to  other  similarly  situated 
officers.  Furthermore, we have seen no evidence indicating that 
the  applicant's selection record was  erroneously constituted at 
the  time  he  was  considered  for  promotion  by  the  CY  1991B 
selection  board. 
Additionally,  applicant's  contentions 
concerning the statutory compliance of Selective Early Retirement 
Boards  (SERBS) and  the  legality of  the  Special Selection Board 
(SSB) process,  in  our  opinion,  have  no  merit. 
The  detailed 
comments provided by the respective Air Force offices adequately 
address  these  issues. 
Therefore,  we  agree  with  the 
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed 
as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  failed  to 
sustain  his  burden  of  establishing  the  existence  of  either  an 
error  or  an  injustice  warranting  favorable  action  on  his 
requests. 

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  not 
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  not 
considered with this application. 

9 

9 6 - 0 2 9 2 6  

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on  15 December  1997,  under  the provisions of 
AFI 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

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

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 1 4 9 ,   dated 23  Sep 96,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 9  Apr 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 20  May 97 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Jun 9 7 .  
Exhibit F.  Letter from counsel, dated 18 Aug 97,  w/atchs. 

1 7 -  

CHARLES E. BENNETT 
Panel Chairman 

- 

10 

9 6 - 0-2 9 2 6