ADDENDUM TO

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01126
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the  period  17 May
88 through 7 Mar 89 be declared void and removed  from  his  records
and that he be granted immediate promotion to  the  grade  of  chief
master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

In an application, dated 20 Apr 98, the applicant requested that his
APRs closing 16 May 88 and 7 Mar 89 be  declared  void  and  removed
from his records.

On 3 Jun 99, the Board granted applicant’s request  for  removal  of
the APR closing 16 May 88 (see Exhibit I).

On 8 Feb 00,  the  applicant  provided  a  four-page  statement  and
requested the Board reconsider removal of the APR closing  7 Mar  89
from his records and grant him immediate promotion to the  grade  of
chief master sergeant (see Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The purpose of his submission is to provide additional evidence that
will justify removal of the APR closing 7 Mar 89  from  his  records
and grant him immediate promotion  to  the  grade  of  chief  master
sergeant.  He states, in  part,  that  he  noted  that  the  Board’s
conclusions   and   recommendations   mirrored   those   found    in
AFPC/DPPPAB’s letter, dated xx xx  xx,  in  which  they  recommended
denial of his submission due to lack of  merit.   He  believes  that
AFPC/DPPPAB’s evaluation fell short because they made no attempt  to
verify official documentation available  to  them  that  proves  the
7 Mar 89  APR  is  invalid  and  inaccurate.   Furthermore,  he  was
disturbed  greatly  by  the  fact  that   AFPC/DPPPAB   offered   no
justification as to why Colonel M----‘s and  Chief  Master  Sergeant
(CMSgt) C----‘s request for removal of the contested  APR  were  not
honored.   Instead  of  facts,   AFPC/DPPPAB   used   opinions   and
assumptions that  appear  to  question  the  mental  competence  and
integrity of Colonel M---- and CMSgt C----, who have been unwavering
in their support of his appeal.  He states that the 7 Mar 89 APR  is
a negative factor against him in any  promotional  process.   He  is
providing  additional  discussion  and  documents  to  validate  his
contention that the 120-day period of supervision  is  not  correct.
He asks the Board to receive the new information and be open  minded
to its contents and not  allow  AFPC/DPPPAB’s  letter  to  influence
their decision in granting him true justice.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice  warranting
removal of the APR closing 7 Mar 89.  After careful consideration of
applicant’s  request  and  the  most  recent   evidence   submitted,
including the additional statement from the rater of the  report  in
question, we are not sufficiently persuaded that a revision  of  the
earlier determination in regard to  the  APR  closing  7 Mar  89  is
warranted.  In our opinion, the rater was responsible for  assessing
applicant’s  performance  during  the  period  in  question  and  is
presumed to have rendered his evaluation based on his observation of
the applicant’s performance.   There  is  nothing  in  the  evidence
provided to  indicate  that  the  rater  was  unable  to  render  an
independent   assessment    of    the    applicant’s    performance.
Consequently, we do not believe the rater’s statement  substantiates
to our satisfaction that he did not have the required number of days
of supervision as stipulated by Air Force  regulation  or  that  the
contested report closing 7 Mar 89 is inaccurate as written.  To  the
contrary, it appears that the contested report as rendered was based
on applicant’s performance during the time period  and  we  find  no
evidence of an injustice.  In view of  the  foregoing,  the  earlier
decision to deny applicant's request for removal of the 7 Mar 89 APR
is affirmed.

2.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, will
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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 March 2000,  under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
                  Ms. Barbara White-Olson, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit I.  ROP, dated 9 Jul 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit J.  Letter fr applicant, dated 8 Feb 00, w/atchs.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair

                                                   4 MAY 1998



MEMORANDUM FOR AFPC/DPPPAB
                     AFBCMR
                     IN TURN

FROM:   HQ AFPC/DPPPWB
         550 C Street West, Ste 09
          Randolph AFB TJ:C 78150-4711

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records – XXXX-XX-XXXX

      Requested Action. The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR void his
Airman Performance Report (APRs) closing 16 May 88 and 7 Mar 89. We will
address the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the request
be approved.

      Reason for Request. The applicant states reduction of executive
ability from 9 to 8 for the APR closing 16 May 88 was based on an erroneous
assessment of his performance and he did not have the required 120 days
supervision for the APR closing 7 Mar 89.

      Fact. See HQ AFPC/DPPP AB Memorandum. In addition, the applicant has a
projected retirement date of 1 Jul 98 based on High Year Tenure (HYT).

      Discussion. The first time the contested reports were considered in
the promotion process was cycle 91S9 to CMSgt (promotions effective 1 Jan
91- 1 Dec 91). Should the Board void the contested reports or make any
other significant change, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant
will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with
cycle 91S9.

      Recommendation. We defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPAB.



                                        Chief Inquiries/ AFBCMR Section
                                        Enlisted Promotion Branch

cc.
SAF/MIBR





                                        8 MAY 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPAB
              550 C Street West, Suite 8
              Randolph AFB TX 78150-4710

SUBJECT: AFI 36-2603 Application- xxxx xxx xxxx – xxxx – xxx -xxxx

      Requested Action. The applicant requests voidance of the airman
performance reports (APRs) that closed out 16 May 88 and 7 Mar 89,

      Basis for Request. The applicant contends the APRs were not an
accurate assessment of his duty performance.

      Recommendation. Time bar. If the AFBCMR considers, we recommend denial
due to lack of merit.

      Facts and Comments.

      a.  By law, a claim must be filed within three years of the date of
discovery of the alleged error or injustice (10 U.S.C. 1552[b]). It is
obvious that the errors claimed here were discoverable at the time they
occurred. The applicant provided nothing to convince us that the errors
were not discoverable until Jun 94, nor has he offered a concrete
explanation for filing late. While we would normally recommend the
application be denied as untimely, we are aware that the AFBCMR has
determined it must adhere to the decision in the case of Detweiler v. Pena,
38F.3d591 (D.C. Cir 1994)--which prevents application of the statute's time
bar if the applicant has filed within three years of separation or
retirement.

      b.  The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) 10 Mar 98.  A copy of the ERABs decision
memorandum is included in the applicant's appeal package.

      c.  AFR 39-62, Noncommissioned Officer and Airman Performance Reports,
28 Oct 83.

      d.  In support of his appeal, the applicant includes, a copy of the
ERAB package; copies of several of his APRs; pictures and medical history;
list of medical profiles; causes of illness and definition; flight
organization chart; previous and subsequent performance reports; letters of
support from two members of his rating chain; a letter of support from his
commander; and a copy of an old report on one of his subordinates.

      e.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as
written when it becomes a matter of record. It takes substantial evidence
to the contrary to have a report changed or voided. To effectively
challenge an APR, it is important to hear from all the evaluators on the
contested report-not only for support, but for clarification/explanation.
The applicant failed to provide any documentation from the rater or the 1st
Indorser of the 16 May 88 APR, or from the 1st indorser of the Mar 89
report. In the absence of information from the evaluators, official
substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or
Social Actions is appropriate, but not provided in this case.

      f.  The applicant included a memorandum from the 2nd Indorser of both
the contested reports. He now, some ten years after the reports became a
matter of record, recommends removal of the 16 May 88 APR, and any report
in which higher level indorsements were not granted based on facts
attributable to the applicant's illness. While it is true the applicant did
not receive higher level indorsement on the Mar 89 report, it is also true
the Mar 89 report does not mention anything in regard to the applicant's
illness. As a matter of fact, the rater's last statement validates the
accuracy of the Mar 89 report. Therefore, we conclude the report was never
based on the applicant's illness.
Neither of the rating officials who provided statements mention what
evidence they have now that was not previously available for their
consideration when they indorsed the original reports. The 2nd Indorser
also makes no mention of support to remove, the Mar 89 report. We would
like to point out to the board that it is not uncommon for evaluators to
"soften" their opinions of an individual's duty performance over time as
memories fade and specific details are forgotten.

      g.  The applicant contends there were fewer than 120 days supervision
on the Mar 89 APR. However, he failed to include any official
documentation, such as an evaluation report roster, to validate his
contention. We would also like to point out that neither of the evaluators
addressed this issue in their correspondence. Additionally, since he
delayed filing his appeal for ten years, we do not believe there would be
any evidence in existence now that would substantiate his claim.

      h.  The applicant contends the contested APRs are inconsistent with
previous performance.  It is not feasible to compare one report covering a
certain period of time with another report covering a different period of
time. This does not allow for changes in the ratee's performance and does
not follow the intent of the governing regulation, AFR 39-62.  The APR was
designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the
performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance.

      Summary. Based on the evidence provided, our recommendations are
appropriate.


                                       Chief, BCMR and SSB Section
                                       Directorate of Pers Program Mgt


                                             8 March 1999
                                              98-01126

MEMORANDUM FORAFBCMR

FROM:  BCMR Medical Consultant
              1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor
        Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002

SUBJECT. Application for Correction of Military Records -  xxxx xxx xxx –

      REQUESTED ACTION:  Asked by BCMR Examiner to review record regarding
applicant's allegation that his supervisor used medical information to mark
him down on his performance report that covered the period 25 June 1987 to
16 May 1988.

      FACTS:  The applicant suffered from Grave's Disease, a condition of
extreme overactivity of the thyroid gland with resultant metaboiic and
ocular problems, He was treated with an extended period of steroid therapy
for this which caused some well-recognized problems with weight gain. Other
than this, and a problem with a reaction to eye medications prompted by the
thyroid condition, the applicant does not address any other medical
condition that he may have developed during his years of service.

      DISCUSSION: The applicant had known significant health problems during
the report period in question which extended back over several years. None
of this, however, could conceivably explain his rater's comment on the
performance report in question that addressed his medical problems as
"adversely affect (ing) his executive ability," A medical physical profile
dated 13 April 1988 addressed the applicant's weight in relation to his
thyroid disease and excused him from "any weight standards until treatment
is finished." (The date 13 June 1988 was the expected release date of this
temporary restriction. . .a date that included the end of the reporting
period that addressed his weight as being a problem in regards to "weight
management and military appearance standards,") Clearly, any reference to
the applicant's medical conditions over which he had no control were
erroneous and should not have been used in characterization of his
performance,

      RECOMMENDATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that any
reference to the applicant's medical conditions noted in the performance
report dated 17 May 1988 should be stricken as being immaterial,
irrelevant, and misleading for the purposes of determining the applicant's
administrative capabilities.  Further resolution of the applicant's concern
regarding comments about his "Recommended Improvement Areas" is beyond this
reviewer's ability to resolve.

                            Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR
                             Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council