ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

4EC 0 8 1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

- 

558-76-8013 

-.. 

DOCKET NUMBER:  88-028 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel; or, that the 
AF  Form  77, Supplemental Evaluation  Sheet, which  replaced  t w o  
voided  Officer Evaluation Reports  (OERs), be  altered to inform 
promotion boards of  the reason for the removal of the reports. 
If the AF Form 77 is altered, she be considered for promotion to 
the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special  Selection Board 
(SSB) . 

RESUME  OF CASE: 
On 22 November 1988,  the Board considered and granted an appeal 
by  the applicant that her Officer Effectiveness Reports  (OERs) , 
closing 14 August 1981 and 19 December 1987 be declared void and 
removed from her records.  A summary of the evidence considered 
by the Board and the rationale for its decision is set forth in 
the Record of Proceedings (ROP), which is attached at Exhibit H. 
The  applicant  was  subsequently  considered  and  selected  for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  the  CY89  Central  Major 
Selection Board, which convened on 4 December 1989. 
On  17 March  1995,  applicant applied to the Board  requesting an 
Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) ,  closing  10  April  1992 ,  be 
amended  to  reflect  a  professional  military  education  (PME) 
recommendation for Senior Service School; her officer selection 
brief  (OSB)  be  updated  to  reflect  award  of  the  Meritorious 
Service Medal,  Second Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (MSM 20LC); and  she be 
promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel;  or,  in  the 
alternative,  she  be  granted  SSB  consideration  by  the  CY94A 
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.  On  26  September 1995,  her 
application  was  partially  approved  by  the  Board  -  granting 
correction to the OPR and SSB consideration.  A  summary of  the 
evidence  considered  by  the  Board  and  the  rationale  f o r   its 
decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket 
Number 95-01061, at Exhibit I.  In view of the Board's  decision, 
applicant's  record was  reconsidered for promotion to  lieutenant 

I’ 

colonel and  nonselected by  the  13 January 1997 and 19 May  1997 
SSBs . 
On 12 August  1997,  the applicant wrote the Secretary of the Air 
Force  concerning  the  Air  Force  promotion  system  (Exhibit J). 
Specifically, the applicant believes she was placed at an unfair 
disadvantage in the promotion process when she was considered for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the absence of the two officer 
evaluation reports (OERs), which were removed by the Board in an 
attempt to remedy the ill effects of a severe sexual harassment 
case.  She’believes her record can no longer be considered fairly 
in the promotion process. 
The following is a resume of applicant’s OPR ratings subsequent 
to her promotion to the grade of major. 

# 

Period Endinq 
19 Dec 90 
LO Apr 92 
28 Sep 92 
7 Jul 93 
6 Jul 94 
6 Jul 95 
6 Jul 96 
## 
###  30 May 97 
####30 May 98 

Eva1 uation 
Meets Standards (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

#  Top report at  the time saAe was consiered and nonselected for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel by  the CY94A Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board, which convened on 11 October 1994 
##  Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel by  the CY96C Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board, which convened on 8 July 1996. 
###  Top report at the time she was considered and nonselected for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY97C Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board, which convened on 21 July 1997. 
####  Top report at  the time she was  considered and nonselected 
for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY98B  Central 
Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 1 June 1998. 
Information maintained in the Personnel Data System  (PDS) reveals 
that  the  applicant  has  been  nonselected  for promotion  to  the 
grade of lieutenant colonel by four selection boards and that she 
currently  has  an  established  date  of  separation  of  31  August 
i a a a  

2 

8 8 - 0 2 8 5 6  

. .  

A I R F O R C E E Y A L U A T I Q N  : 
Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request,  the  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB 
Branch,  HQ AFPC/DPPPA, provided  an advisory opinion addressing 
the issues raised by the applicant in her letter to the Secretary 
of the Air Force. 
DPPPA stated that they thoroughly reviewed the procedures used in 
conducting and processing the applicant's  SSB considerations and 
find  them  to  be  in  direct  accordance  with  the  governing 
instruction which implements the law. 
The applicant explains her promotion to the grade of major by the 
CY90 Board, with the "holes" in her record, by stating the board 
was not  as  selective or competitive as the  lieutenant  colonel 
selection boards.  DPPPA concurs.  DPPPA does not concur with the 
applicant's  contention  that  the  SSB  process  cannot  fairly 
consider her  record  for promotion.  Officers  are  selected and 
nonselected by both central boards and SSBs with "holes" in their 
records. 
DPPPA  stated  that  the  applicant's  contention  that  her  record 
cannot be objectively assessed in the SSB process  is unfounded. 
At  the  2 September 1997 SSB, an officer was  recommended to be 
selected for promotion to the grade of  colonel with one of his 
most recent OPRs voided from his record.  The applicant's  omitted 
OERs  were  much  farther  down  in  her  record  than  the  selected 
individual to whom DPPPA is referring.  While all documents in an 
officer  selection  record  (OSR)  are  important,  it  is  common 
knowledge that the most  recent reports in a record are the most 
important, as they reflect performance in the officer's  current 
grade. 
DPPPA stated that it is not Air Force policy for a record to be 
selected or not  selected  for benchmark  status on  the basis  of 
whether or not it contains an omitted report.  To be selected for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  in-the-promotion 
(IPZ) by  an SSB requires that  the consideree's  record outscore 
all  the  originally  nonselected  records  and,  at  least, tie  or 
outscore one originally selected record.  'This has been Air Force 
policy since 1976.  No changes to standards have occurred since 
the applicant has been in the Air Force. 
DPPPA stated that  while  the  applicant  suggests changes to  the 
appeals  and  SSB  process,  it  is  not  within  her  discretion  to 
determine how her SSB consideration occurs.  DPPPA indicated that 
the action to void the OERs from the applicant's  record was done 
at  her  request  through  the  appeal  process.  If  the  applicant 
wanted  the  P0594A  and  P0596C selection boards  to  know why  the 
reports  were  voided,  she  had  the  option  of  writing  to  the 
promotion board president.  The applicant chose not  to exercise 
her option of writing  to both  the central selection boards  and 
SSBs.  While  the  applicant believes  the  boards  were  unable  to 
render  an  objective  decision  due  to  a  lack  of  information. 

3 

8 8 - 0 2 8 5 6  

regarding her voided  reports, DPPPA  believes  it  was her  choice 
not  to  provide  them  the  information  she  now  believes  was 
pertinent. 
DPPPA stated that throughout the applicant's  letter and attached 
background paper, she continually refers to senior officers who 
have  told  her  she  has  a  "promotable"  record. 
While  these 
officers  are  entitled  to  their  opinions  of  the  applicant's 
performance  and  promotion  potential,  they  were  not  the 
individuals specifically charged with assessing her record at the 
promotion-board.  DPPPA has no reason to believe their judgment 
is more accurate than that of a duly constituted board, assessing 
the applicant's  record in comparison with her peers. 
DPPPA stated that unofficial documentation cannot be placed in an 
OSR  to offer an explanation for the voided action, it is left to 
the consideree to inform the board - if they so choose - of the 
reason the report was voided. 
DPPPA  does not  recommend  the  Board  grant  the applicant direct 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  DPPPA stated the 
applicant has failed to prove the appeals or SSB process worked 
to  her  detriment.  The  applicant  received  as  full  and  fair 
consideration by the central boards and S S B s   as allowed, limited 
only  by  her  decision  not  to  write  letters  to  each particular 
board president.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPPA strongly 
recommends  against  direct  promotion  and  deviation  from 
established board procedures. 
A  complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit K. 

APPL ICANT 'S REVIEW OF AIR FO RCE E VALUATION: 
The  Special Selection Board  (SSB), or  any  selection board,  is 
supposed to rate past performance and thereby assess performance- 
based  future potential for advancement in rank.  The ?@  Form 77 
in  her  records  does  not  reflect  on  a  period  of  performance. 
Rather, it wipes out a period of excellent performance  (falsely 
described in a retaliatory performance report as otherwise) and 
substitutes documentation, which at best could only be described 
as "neutral."  This did not make her records whole.  AFPC  is no 
doubt aware of this  (the potentially prejudicial impact of an AF 
Form 77), as it has in the past granted SSB  consideration without 
the AF Form 77 on file (see attachment 1).  If the Board has any 
question, it need only compare the AF  Form 77 to any OER or OPR 
she has received -  and it, too, can see how the damage is done. 
No  letter  she  could  write  the  selection  board  would  credibly 
provide  the missing  information -  nor should she be  required to 
submit  to  each  selection  board  materials  that,  in  effect, 
members' 
prospectively 
perceptions.  Nor can she  (or anyone else) "recreate" a fair OPR 
f o r   this period  because  of  t h e   elements of  reprisal  involved. 
N o r   do  the  instructions to  the  selection boards  provide  board 

\\ second - gue s s " 

promot ion 

board 

members any help.  The only oblique mention of the "holes,, in a 
record is found in the Secretary's  instruction to the SSB.  She 
respectfully submits that being made whole  (required for full and 
fair promotion  consideration) does not  just  mean  eliminating a 
wrong-it also means restoring what was right.  The fact remains, 
she  cannot  be  'made  whole"  -  not  because  of  her  error,  but 
because  her rating chain chose to viciously punish her *  because 
she objected to blatant harassment and subjected her to reprisal 
for  her  complaints  regarding  that  harassment.  If  the  Board 
cannot make  her record whole for an SSB, then she respectfully 
submits t K e   Board must consider direct promotion as the fairest 
possible solution to this problem. 
As she pointed out to the Secretary of the Air Force, although 
board  members  are  briefed  not  to  prejudice  any  records  with 
missing  performance  reports,  many  board  members  do  so 
(subconsciously or otherwise) .  Equally unfair, neither  senior 
raters nor PRF management  level review boards are provided any 
information  about  the  cause  of  the  "hole(s)"  in  her  record 
although  they,  too,  make  critical  promotion  decisions  that 
related  directly to  the  selection process.  In effect, the AF 
Form 77  (1) will always leave a shadow of doubt, (2) will always 
be subject to unfavorable interpretation, and  ( 3 )   falls far short 
of the performance report it was designed to replace. 
The damage done  to her  records cannot be  undone  at  this date. 
She also believes her case is unique.  It  is impossible to go 
back  and  "recreate"  a  fair,  accurate  and  unbiased  OER. 
Accordingly,  the  only  relief  she  can  request  is  a  direct 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  She is ready and 
willing  to appear  before  the  Board  if  necessary.  Both  Major 
General McB- - -  and Colonel L--- have indicated that they would be 
pleased  to  testify  to  the Board  either by  phone  or  in person. 
Both of these officers have extensive experience as central board 
and SSB members and in General McB---'s case as SSB presidents. 
A  complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit L. 

Pursuant to the Board's  request, the respective Air Force offices 
provided  advisory opinions addressing the  issues raised by  the 
applicant in her 31 October 1997 rebuttal. 
The Selection Board  Secretariat, HQ AFPC/DPPB,  stated that they 
are unable to confirm or disprove the comments of  a former Air 
Force officer, Major  (Retired) N---, regarding scoring procedures 
for Special Selection Boards (SSB)  prior to 1983.  DPPB  indicated 
that  the  current SSB procedures  have  been  in effect  since, at 
least, February 1983.  In June 1988, the  Secretary of  the Air 
Force  reviewed  the  SSB  procedures  in  detail,  without  change. 
Further, the SSBs, which were  conducted on 13 January 1997 and 

5 

8 8 - 0 2 8 5 6  

19 May  1997 to reconsider the applicant for promotion, were in 
compliance with all governing directives (Exhibit M). 
The Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPA,  do not believe  the 
applicant has raised any new or valid  arguments not previously 
discussed fully in their initial advisory.  DPPPA indicated that 
the applicant has not provided any credible evidence to- support 
any of  her opinions and  comments.  Rather,  she simply refutes 
their  advisory by  expounding  on and  restating her  case.  The 
applicant believes  the method  the Air  Force uses to correct or 
replace mi-ssing reports to have been prejudicial in her case, and 
ultimately was  to  blame  for  her  nonselection  to  the grade of 
lieutenant colonel.  As DPPPA previously pointed  out, the fact 
the applicant was promoted by an SSB to the grade of major with 
an AI?  Fom  77  filed  in her  selection  record  proves  selection 
boards are not biased by missing documents.  DPPPA contends that 
the  applicant  was  "made  whole"  when  she  was  retroactively 
promoted to major by the PO489 SSB.  A direct promotion now would 
be only the beginning of a series of appeals each time she was 
nonselected for promotion.  While it is distressing the applicant 
had to endure these unfortunate circumstances, it is evident she 
does not have a competitive record to be  selected for promotion 
to lieutenant colonel.  DPPPA does not believe that the AF  Form 
77 was a contributing factor in the applicant's  nonselection by 
either SSB.  The statements on the AF Form 77 are not viewed in a 
negative  light by  promotion boards  or  SSBs.  They  inform  the 
board members that an injustice had occurred when the report was 
originally written,  and  the report was  subsequently removed by 
approval of the Secretary of the Air Force.  Numerous applicants 
are promoted by SSBs that have had AF Forms 77 in their records. 
One recent case in point not only had an AF Form 77 in place of 
an OPR, it also had  an AF  Form  77 in place of an AF  Form  709, 
Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) .  Both of these reports were 
removed by  approval of the Secretary of the Air Force, and the 
consideree  was  subsequently  promoted  by  SSB. 
There  is  no 
requirement  to maintain  statistics on  how  many  officers met  a 
central board with either an AF Form 77 in lieu of an OPR or with 
a "corrected copy" statement on an OPR. 
As  DPPPA  previously  pointed  out,  if  the  applicant  desires 
subsequent promotion boards to know the situation surrounding the 
removal of  the OPR, it  is up  to her.  They  disagree with  the 
applicant's belief that it is in the best interest of justice for 
the board  to deviate from the regulatory guidelines and correct 
her report as she specified in her letter to the Secretary of the 
Air  Force.  While  they understand  the  applicant's  frustration 
with the  correction system, DPPPA must  stress her  case  is not 
unique.  It would not be in the best interest of the majority of 
the force to  allow  an  individual to  chose the manner  in which 
corrections to records are made.  Even if the applicant were to 
prove the promotion system was biased against her based on the AF 
Form  77  present  in  her  selection  record,  DPPPA  does  not 
understand how this correlates to her promotion status.  If the 

6 

. 

8 8 - 0 2 8 5 6  

b  rds  were  founl  to  be 
promote the applicant. 
Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  DPPPA  strongly  recommended 
against  direct  promotion  and  deviation  from  established board 
procedures.  A  complete copy of this evaluation is appended at 
Exhibit N. 

sgal, the  remedy  would  not  be  to 

. .  

e

outst- 

s

 

I, 

a

of the usual \I 

OSe officers beins -  considered because  it  at  best  rovj dee 
' 

Her case is about reprisal -  reprisal for resisting the sexual 
advances  of  her  squadron  commander,  reprisal  for  complaining 
about the resulting false derogatory performance report -  and the 
long lasting effects of those reprisals.  Reprisal is relatively 
rare  in  the Air  Force,  but  that  is  what  makes  her  situation 
unique. 
As  to  the  issue  of  granting  a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) 
without  the AF  Form  77 in the  file, she provided  considerable 
evidence,  including  testimony  from  senior  officers  that  had 
served on regular SSBs that such was  the case.  These senior Air 
Force officers have  indicated the presence of an AF  Form  77 i 
us Uallv vi ewed negativelv bv board members or at l
d
neutral record of - Derformnce -lace 
record;. AFPC evaded the Board's  request to comment on the issue 
of granting an SSB without the AF  Form  77 in the file.  AFPC's 
responses  provided  extensive  additional  "rebuttal"  commehts 
regarding  her  counter-arguments  to  their . original  advisory 
opinion. 
AFPC has been silent on the procedural anomalies she described in 
her  request  for  reconsideration.  For  example, AFPC  does  not 
refute the fact its scoring system was "developed to minimize the 
selection rate."  In fact, AFPC  actually confirmed a former AFPC 
official's  (Major N---)  comment  that  the  Secretary of  the Air 
Force did  not  approve  the  SSB procedures until  1988-six  years 
after SSBs began. 
She does not take issue with the SSBs having been constructed and 
administratively  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  written 
requirements of relevant statutes and instructions.  She asks the 
Board, however, to look  at the basic requirement for an SSB in 
view  of  her  situation and  according to Title  10, Section  628. 
Her  record  before  the  various  boards  did  not  "appear as  they 
would have appeared."  It is therefore hard to understand how an 
SSB  could  ever  effectively  and  fairly  evaluate  her  record  of 
performance. 
She was selected for promotion to the grade of major by a normal 
central selection board  in 1989.  An  SSB did not promote her to 
major  (or any other rank) nor was she retroactively selected for 
promotion.  Thus, the whole AFPC  premise  f o r   their position  is 

7 

8 8 - 0 2 8 5 6  

and perhaps they are confusing the 

built  on a false assertion, 
issues. 
A general officer in her chain of command very recently discussed 
with her the results of the most recent Management Level Review 
(MLR) of which he was a member.  This MLR considered her records 
(above  the  zone)  in  order  to  establish  the  promotion 
recommendation  for  the  next  selection  board  for  lieutenant 
colonel.  He indicated the board members considered her overall 
record to be  outstanding.  However, he  also indicated that the 
MLR members considered the missing reports to be a  "problem',  and 
agreed  "were  it  not  for  the  [negative]  effect  of  the  missing 
[reports]"  she  would  readily  have  competed  for  and  probably 
received a definitely promote "DP.',  From this candid exchange it 
would seem the adverse effect of missing performance reports on 
board members'  perceptions of missing performance reports still 
exists  (AFPC's  view notwithstanding) and will  continue to do so 
at all levels. 
AFPC is correct that she did not complain when she was selected 
for major.  She was very relieved that an unjustly rendered false 
OER  that  would  certainly  have  seen  her  passed  over  had  been 
removed and  that  she had been selected.  She did not know then 
that the AFBCMR's  well-intended corrective action had placed her 
chances  of  further  promotion,  regardless  of  her  future 
performance level, at grave risk. 
AFPC's  surmise that she was not selected because her record did 
not match  the quality of  the benchmark  records is an unfounded 
assumption not based on any specific testimony or evidence.  On 
the other hand, her assertion to the contrary is based on first 
hand  testimony that, if  the Board desires, can readily be  made 
available (referenced testimony from selection board members). 
AFPC's  statement that the AF Form 77 is not viewed in a negative 
light  is  specifically  contradicted  by  former  members  and 
presidents  of  central  promotion  boards  and  special  selection 
boards  who  have  discussed  their  board  experiences  with  her. 
While  an  AF  Form  77  documents  the  injustice  took  place,  it 
neither  explains  it  nor  corrects  it.  AFPC  has  provided  no 
rebuttal comment concerning her previous statements that a letter 
to the selection board simply does not work. 
As  she  previously  pointed  out,  AFPC  is  somewhat  in  error 
regarding what she has requested.  She requested that the system 
be  changed  in order that promotion boards could more  equitably 
consider the record of performance of those officers who have AF 
Form  7 7 s   in  their  promotion  folders.  In  the  absence  of  any 
recognition  by  AFPC  that  officers  with  missing  performance 
reports are in fact handicapped in the process of competition for 
promotion  (and in  the  absence of  a resulting change  to  the  AF 
Form 77  process) ,  the remedy is indeed to promote  such officers 
if they are otherwise qualified. 

8 

8 8 - 0 2 8 5 6  

She readily understands there may be some reluctance on the part 
of the Board to perhaps set what could be regarded as a general 
precedent  whereby  any  officer  who  has  a  missing  performance 
report could challenge their nonselection for promotion on that 
basis and possibly  receive a direct promotion.  The setting of 
such a precedent  is not  required  since her  case  is unusual  - 
resulting  from  the  long-lasting effects  of  reprisal,. ‘possibly 
unique. 
A  complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit P. 

% 

1.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s 
submission,  we  are  unpersuaded  that  the  applicant  should  be 
directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel or that the 
AF Forms  77 should be altered and reviewed by a Special Selection 
Board  (SSB).  Applicant’s contentions and  supporting documents 
were  carefully  considered. 
We  observe  that  due  to  the 
applicant‘s  request,  two  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OERs), 
closing 14 August  1981  (as a second lieutenant) and 19 December 
1987  (as a captain), were removed from her records and AF Forms 
77 were  inserted in place of  the now voided  reports.  In this 
respect, we note that it is standard Air Force policy to insert 
the cited form in a member’s record when a performance report is 
voided and that it is not unique to the applicant’s records.  No 
evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that 
the cited form was erroneous or contrary to the provisions of the 
Air Force regulations and policies.  While the applicant may view 
her circumstances as unfair, we do not believe the AF Form  77, in 
and by itself, is prejudicial to the applicant.  We have seen no 
indication that the applicant was treated unfairly in comparison 
to similarly situated officers who have had a performance report 
voided.  In  addition, we  note  that  the  applicant  could  have 
written letters to each particular board president concerning the 
basis  for removal of  the OERs;  however, she chose not to write 
the board president regarding the circumstances. 
2.  We believe the applicant has received appropriate promotion 
consideration as a result of  the previous corrective action by 
the  AFBCMR. 
The  fact  that  she  has  not  been  selected  for 
promotion  cannot  be  blamed  on  one  specific  thing;  i.e.,  the 
voided  OERs  or the AF  Form  77.  Applicant’s nonselections are 
indicative of  the intensely competitive nature of the promotion 
selection process  and  it  cannot  be  determined  that  one  sole 
factor was the reason for these nonselections.  Selection boards 
use the whole person concept to subjectively assess each eligible 
officer’s relative potential  to  serve in the next  higher grade 
and there is no guarantee the applicant would have been promoted 
under any circumstances.  We therefore agree with the Air Force 
analyses of this case and find an insufficient basis to conclude. 

9 

8 8’- 0 2  8 56 

A.. 

has  suffered  a  promotion  injustice. 
that  th-  a m 1  i can 
Accordingly,  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  that  the 
applicant's  record was substantially in error, or that the board 
was  unable  to  make  a  reasonable  decision  concerning  her 
promotability in relationship to her peers, we find no compelling 
basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this 
application. 
3.  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. 

D 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. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 6 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair 
MS. Ann L. Heidig, Member 
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit H . 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J. 
Exhibit K. 
Exhibit L. 
Exhibit M. 
Exhibit N. 
Exhibit 0. 
Exhibit P. 

Record of Proceedings, dated 2 Dec  88. 
Record of Proceedings, dated 23 Oct 96. 
Letter from applicant, dated 12 Aug 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 16 Sep 97. 
Letter from applicant, dated 31 Oct 97, w/atchs. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 27 Apr 98. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 1 May 98. 
Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Oct 97 and 18 May 98. 
Letter from applicant, dated 15 Jun 98, w/atchs. 

Panel Chair 

v 

10 

8 8 - 0 2 8 5 6