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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 90-00851

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On  31  July  1990,  the  Board  considered  applicant’s  request  that  the
Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the Calendar Years 1989  and  1990
(CY89 & CY90) Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Boards  be  removed  from  his
records; he be considered for promotion by Special Selection  Boards  (SSBs)
for the CY89 & CY90 boards; if selected for promotion,  he  be  reconsidered
for Senior Service School (SSS) attendance;  his  CY89  and  CY90  promotion
nonselections be set aside; and that his  retirement  date  be  adjusted  to
August 1991.  The Board found, however, that insufficient evidence of  error
or injustice had been submitted and denied his requests.   A  complete  copy
of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F.

In  an  application,  dated  28   July   1992,   the   applicant   requested
reconsideration of his appeal (Exhibit G).  On 8 September  1992,  applicant
was advised that this request did not meet the criteria for  reconsideration
by the Board (Exhibit H).

On 14 February 1993, the applicant requested reconsideration of  his  appeal
and  amended  his  request  to  include  upgrade  of  the   CY89   PRF   and
reinstatement to active duty, with retroactive pay and  allowances  (Exhibit
I).  On 5 March 1993, applicant was advised again that his request  did  not
meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit J).

In the instant application, dated 17 November 1994, the  applicant  requests
reconsideration  of  his  appeal.   On  this  occasion,  he  raises   issues
regarding  the  statutory  compliance  of  central  selection  boards,   the
promotion recommendation  appeal  process,  and  the  legality  of  the  SSB
process (Exhibit K).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief of Operations, Selection Board Secretariat,  AFMPC/DPPB,  reviewed
this application and states the following:

      a.    The composition of the SSBs that considered the  applicant  were
in compliance with applicable statute (i.e., each  board  consisted  of,  at
least, five officers from the Active Duty List and  had  a  Reserve  officer
representative).

      b.    Applicant’s interpretation  of  10  USC  641  regarding  Reserve
officers is clearly in error.  Section  631  in  no  way  precludes  Reserve
officers from serving on a promotion board.

      c.    Air Force legal representatives have reviewed  their  procedures
and have determined they comply with applicable statutes and policy.

      d.    The Air Force has used the  panel  concept  for  many  years  in
conducting selection boards.  The panel concept has safeguards to ensure  an
equal distribution of the quality spectrum of records to each panel.

      c.    DOD Directive 1320.12  directed  separate  promotion  boards  be
conducted for each  competitive  category  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.  This has been done for many  years
without challenge or objection by Air Force legal representatives.

      d.    The identification of  benchmark  records  from  each  selection
board is in compliance with governing directives.

      e.    Because the benchmark records are very similar  in  quality,  it
is not unusual to have some inversion in the benchmark order of merit  (OOM)
created by the SSB.  Whenever the inversion is of a nature that a  nonselect
benchmark record receives the highest score by the SSB and the  consideree’s
record receives the same  score  or  even  the  second  highest  score,  the
nonselect benchmark record and the consideree’s record are returned  to  the
board members for rescoring.  If the consideree’s record scores higher  than
the nonselect benchmark, the consideree will be  a  select.   Regardless  of
the situation, SSB members are not informed  which  record  is  a  benchmark
record  or  a  consideree  record.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s requests.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit L.

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFMPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this  application
and states that the  applicant  contends  the  requirement  for  senior  and
Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB)  president  concurrence  eliminates
any opportunity for an officer  to  appeal  an  inaccurate  or  unjust  PRF.
However, as evidenced by the  frequency  of  successful  PRF  appeals,  this
statement is not based on fact.  The MLEB president  must  review  all  PRFs
for qualify and to validate the senior rater  recommendations  to  safeguard
against exaggeration and inflation.   Air  Force  policy  is  based  on  the
principle that these senior officers are capable of  making  the  assessment
of an officer’s potential for promotion. In regard  to  applicant’s  request
that his PRF be annotated with “N/A” in the group  size  block,  they  state
that the block is appropriately annotated with a “1” for officers  who  have
a change in eligibility status after the PRF allocation  date.   Except  for
his own interpretation, the applicant has not shown a negative  impact  from
this annotation.  The applicant  also  requests  the  annotation  “corrected
copy” be removed from the PRFs since it draws attention  to  the  fact  they
were corrected.  However,  annotating  the  reports  in  such  a  manner  is
stipulated  in  AFI  36-2401  so  administrative  personnel  are   able   to
differentiate between the corrected report and  the  erroneous  report.   In
addition, if the Board directs corrections to the PRFs the “corrected  copy”
annotation is masked for the  SSB.   Furthermore,  they  strongly  recommend
denial of applicant’s request for  direct  promotion.   A  duly  constituted
selection board applying the complete promotion  criteria  is  in  the  most
advantageous position to render  this  most  important  determination.   The
applicant has not proven the promotion system is flawed, nor  has  he  shown
he was treated unjustly.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his requests.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit M.

The  Senior  Attorney-Advisor,  AFMPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application   and
characterizes the  application  as  a  request  for  reconsideration  (i.e.,
applicant is asking for  essentially  the  same  relief  he  sought  in  his
previous application (AFBCMR 90-00851).  Applicant’s  brief  in  support  of
his latest petition is  a  variation  of  the  same  commercially  prepared,
canned brief that has become all too familiar to the Board.   It  offers  no
new evidence at all, but only a series of arguments supported solely by  the
author’s opinions.  As such, in their opinion, applicant has failed to  meet
the criteria for reconsideration by the Board.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial on that basis.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that  AFMPC/JA’s
claim that no  evidence  has  been  provided  could  be  supported  if  such
information were not already in the public domain.  Therefore,  their  claim
is disingenuous at  best.   Perhaps  AFMPC/JA  believes  the  document  they
characterize as a “commercially prepared, canned brief that has  become  all
too  familiar  to  this  Board”  has  been  pre-decided  by  the  Board   on
information not contained in his petition and  rebuttal.   If  that  is  the
case,  then  the  Board  has  violated  its  own  statute  and  the  Antioch
stipulation which established the minimum due process  to  be  afforded  all
applicants.  As to newly discovered evidence,  the  applicant  contends  his
case abounds with information which was not discoverable  until  long  after
his case was adjudicated.   Although  the  Board  directed  removal  of  the
contested OER and SSB consideration, they did not direct reconsideration  of
award of a  “Definitely  Promote”  recommendation  on  the  CY89  PRF.   The
applicant contends the select rate for individuals receiving  a  “Definitely
Promote”  recommendation  at  the  CY89  board  was  100%  and   effectively
accounted for 2/3 of the promotion quota.  As such,  he  was  only  provided
promotion reconsideration for the 1/3 of the promotion quota.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by  applicant,
we are still not persuaded that he has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  The applicant contends that since the  Board  removed  the  OER,
closing 19 December 1987, which was a  matter  of  record  at  the  time  he
competed for a “Definitely Promote (DP)”  recommendation,  the  PRF  process
was  tainted  and  denied  him  fair  and  equitable  consideration  for   a
“Definitely  Promote”  recommendation  on  his  PRF  for  the  CY89   board.
However, applicant has failed to provide statements from  the  senior  rater
and MLEB president supporting the upgrade of his PRF.  Applicant's  numerous
contentions concerning the statutory compliance  of  selection  boards,  the
promotion recommendation appeal process and SSBs are duly  noted.   However,
we do not find  these  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale   provided   by   the
appropriate offices  of  the  Air  Force.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the  rational  expressed  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
warranting favorable action on this portion of his  requests.   As  a  final
observation, had the Board upgraded the contested PRF to a “DP”, based on  a
legal opinion of 6 February 1996, applicant would be entitled  to  have  the
group size changed to “NA”.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the additional  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 30 March 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 31 Jul 90, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 92, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Sep 92.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 93, w/atch.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Mar 93.
      Exhibit K.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 94, w/atchs.
      Exhibit L.  Letter, AFMPC/DPPB, dated 9 Aug 95.
      Exhibit M.  Letter, AFMPC/DPPPA, dated 11 Aug 95, w/atch.
      Exhibit N.  Letter, AFMPC/JA, dated 14 Sep 95.
      Exhibit O.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Oct 95.
      Exhibit P.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Nov 95, w/atchs.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair