ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  88-02168
            INDEX CODES:  110.03, 111.02,
                                               131.00

            COUNSEL:  GUY J. FERRANTE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The NON-EAD Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERS) closing 9 Jan 77,  31
Aug 77, 31 Aug 78, 31 Aug 80, and  31  Aug  81  be  removed  from  his
records.

The Supplemental Evaluation Sheet (SES) closing 31 Dec 81  be  removed
from his records.

A statement be added to his records which explains  his  ineligibility
for consideration by the 5-year Regular Air Force Appointment Board.

He be given Special Selection Board consideration for promotion by the
CY87  Major  Board  and  Intermediate  Service  School,  and  by   the
Lieutenant Colonel Board and Senior Service School.

By amendment, he be returned to active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

The applicant is a former Regular Air Force officer who was  honorably
relieved from active duty on 31 Jul 95 and retired  in  the  grade  of
major, effective 1 Aug 95.

On 10 Jan 89, the Board considered and denied the applicant's  request
for removal of all NON-EAD OERs from his records and SSB consideration
as a first-time (in-the-primary zone) eligible (see  AFBCMR  88-02168,
with Exhibits A through F).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His NON-EAD OERs are misleading under the present  Officer  Evaluation
System.  The first three OERs cover a time period which his peers were
not rated.  One OER covers a 24 month rating  period  that  an  active
duty officer on a selection board may not understand.  Another OER and
an SES have technical errors.

His record does not show that he was ineligible for  consideration  by
the 5-year Regular Appointment Board.

The ASC/EN ranking process used incorrect data.

His record should represent his accomplishments correctly and  not  be
subject to incorrect interpretations  or  perceptions  that  would  be
detrimental to his  selection  for  promotions,  service  schools  and
career assignments.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided personal  statements,
supportive statements other documents associated with the matter under
review.

Applicant's complete submissions are at Exhibit G, H, I, and J.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Directorate of Individual Reserve
Programs, ARPC/DR, reviewed the applicant's  most  recent  submissions
and indicated that they defer to HQ ARPC/DR's advisory, dated  24  Jun
88, explaining that the OERs in question were an  assessment  rendered
by competent reporting officials.  According to DR, they do  not  have
the guidance to determine whether or not the OERs did or did not  have
an impact on the applicant's promotion boards.

A complete copy of the DR evaluation is at Exhibit K.

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFMPC/DPMAJA, reviewed the submissions and
indicated that they concurred  with  the  advisory  from  ARPC/DR  and
recommended denial.  DPMAJA noted that the applicant was  promoted  to
major with the contested  reports  in  his  record.   In  their  view,
removing them now would cause that promotion to be flawed.   Also,  by
his own admission, the applicant voluntarily chose  to  serve  in  the
Reserves and also chose when to return  to  active  duty.   These  are
tough decisions for any officer  to  make;  however,  once  made  they
become part of the officer's career history,  and  the  OERs  rendered
during his NON-EAD service are part of that history.

A complete copy of the DPMAJA evaluation is at Exhibit L.

The Officer Appointment/Selective Continuation Section,  AFMPC/DPPPOC,
reviewed the submissions and recommended  denial  of  the  applicant's
request that a statement be placed in his OSR reflecting  he  was  not
eligible for the CY86 Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  Appointment  Board.
According to DPPPOC, the governing instruction gives strict guidelines
on those items  permitted  in  the  OSR.   Based  on  the  information
provided, DPPPOC indicated that they do not believe the applicant  has
shown his later RegAF Appointment caused by his ineligibility for  the
CY86 RegAF Appointment Board, was the basis for his  nonselection  for
promotion.

A complete copy of the DPPPOC evaluation is at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that  the  advisory  opinions
only addressed one of the three issues he previously raised.  He  also
indicate that he was amending his requests to include return to active
duty with a date of rank commensurate with the adjusted promotion,  if
so determined by the Board.

Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit 0.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  DPPPOC  reviewed  the  applicant's
rebuttal and additional documentary  evidence  and  again  recommended
denial.  As stated in their earlier advisory, the applicant was  aware
he was ineligible for the CY86 RegAF Appointment Board  and  with  his
selection for promotion to major he was offered the Regular Air  Force
Appointment and did accept it.  Thus, at the time  of  his  lieutenant
colonel board, he was a Regular officer and they do not believe it was
the basis for his nonselection for  promotion.   In  addition,  DPPPOC
believes that granting relief to the  applicant  would  be  unfair  to
other officers in similar situations.

A complete copy of the DPPPOC evaluation is at Exhibit P.

The Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed the  applicant's
latest submission and recommended denial of his request  to  have  all
his NON-EAD OERs removed from his record.  However,  they  recommended
approval of his request to remove the SES closing  31  Dec  81,  which
would then be replaced by a correctly prepared form.

A complete copy of the DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit Q.

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA reviewed the applicant's  submission
and indicated that  the  request  for  reconsideration  was  untimely.
Moreover, the applicant has not presented new evidence  to  support  a
change in the Board's decision.  Most of what he has submitted as  new
evidence was reasonably available to him at the time of  his  original
submissions.  That which was not amounts  to  nothing  more  than  the
arguments he  raised  originally  and  which  the  Board  rejected  in
rendering its final decisions on his two applications.  In JA's  view,
the applicant's records put him at a competitive  disadvantage  vis-a-
vis his peers.  Enough is enough.   It  is  high  time  this  case  be
finalized.  They recommend that the reconsideration be denied  in  its
entirety.  If, however, the Board determines to grant any  relief,  it
should be confined to the 1981 SES.

A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit R.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his detailed response, counsel indicated that the applicant's  case
is the kind that cries out for relief and that Congress  had  in  mind
when creating Correction Boards.  The errors in  his  record  and  the
misinterpretation of that record by higher authorities  arose  through
no fault of his own but prejudiced his ability to  compete  fairly  or
equitably for  promotion.   The  Board  should  make  him  "whole"  by
correcting his record as requested.

Counsel's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at
Exhibit T.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board's request, AFPC/JA reviewed  counsel's  rebuttal
submission and indicated they agree that the Board should not deny the
request for reconsideration on timeliness grounds. otherwise, they did
not find anything in counsel's rebuttal compelling and reaffirm  their
original opinion.

A complete copy of the JA evaluation, with attachment, is  at  Exhibit
U.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his detailed response, counsel indicated that the Board should  not
abandon common sense and ignore the law governing promotion boards  in
favor of the Air Force's convenience in conducting them.   Nor  should
the Board lose sight of the plain facts and central issues advanced by
the applicant prior to the distracting and evasive  advisory  opinions
from AFPC.  For either or both of  those  reasons,  the  Board  should
grant the applicant the relief that  he  has  so  long  and  patiently
awaited.

Counsel's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at
Exhibit W.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  Having  carefully  reviewed
this application, we agree with the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPEP  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant
has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  A  review  of
the available evidence indicates that the SES closing 31  Dec  81  was
improperly prepared.  Accordingly, we recommend  that  it  be  removed
from the applicant’s records and replaced with  a  correctly  prepared
form.  In our view, this is the proper  and  fitting  relief  in  this
case.  However, in the absence of clear  and  convincing  evidence  to
support  a  determination  that  the  applicant’s  record  before  the
original selection board was so  inaccurate  or  misleading  that  the
board  was  unable  to  make  a  reasonable  decision  concerning  his
promotability in relationship to his peers, we  are  not  inclined  to
recommend SSB consideration with his corrected record.

2.  With regard to his remaining issues, we have carefully  considered
the  applicant’s  contentions  of  error  and/or  injustice  and   the
documentation submitted in support thereof.  However, having carefully
reviewed the position of the  Air  Force  in  this  matter,  with  the
exception of the recommendation to  deny  this  application  based  on
untimeliness in the face of the Detweiler decision (which the  service
has chosen not to appeal), we find its rationale more persuasive  than
the arguments proffered by  the  applicant  at  this  late  date.   We
therefore agree with the opinions of the Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence  of  either
an error or an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of more clear-cut
evidence to the contrary, the applicant’s requests that the  contested
NON-EAD OERs be removed from his records, a statement be added to  his
records which explains his ineligibility for consideration by  the  5-
year Reg AF Appointment Board, he be given SSB consideration,  and  he
be returned to active duty are not favorably considered.

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.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected  to  show  that  the  Supplemental
Evaluation Sheet (SES), AF Form 77, rendered for the  period  1 Sep 81
through 31 Dec 81, be declared void and replaced  with  an  SES  which
reflects he was not rated for this period and that  a  report  is  not
available for administrative reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following additional documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 15 Apr 94, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 17 May 94, w/atchs.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Jun 94.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Aug 94, w/atch.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, ARPC/DR, dated 2 Jun 95.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJA, dated 13 Jun 95.
     Exhibit M.  Letter, AFMPC/DPPPOC, dated 6 Jul 95.
     Exhibit N.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Jul 95.
     Exhibit O.  Letter, applicant, dated 27 Sep 95, w/atchs.
     Exhibit P.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 2 Jul 96.
     Exhibit Q.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
     Exhibit R.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 30 Sep 96, dated
                 30 Sep 96.
     Exhibit S.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Oct 96.
     Exhibit T.  Letter, counsel, dated 19 May 97, w/atchs.
     Exhibit U.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 26 Oct 98.
     Exhibit V.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Nov 98.
     Exhibit W.  Letter, counsel, dated 18 Jan 99, w/atchs.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair









AFBCMR 88-02168




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to      , be corrected to show that the Supplemental
Evaluation Sheet (SES), AF Form 77, rendered for the period 1 Sep 81
through 31 Dec 81, be, and hereby is, declared void and replaced with
an SES which reflects he was not rated for this period and that a
report was not available for administrative reasons.





    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency