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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  91-03049


            COUNSEL:  None


            HEARING DESIRED:  No

RESUME OF CASE:

On 2 Apr 92, the Board considered, and on the basis  of  timeliness,
denied applicant’s requests  to  correct  an  Officer  Effectiveness
Report (OER) rendered for the period 3 Aug  77  through  31 Dec  77;
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, or in the alternative,
consideration for promotion by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the
Calendar Year 1978 (CY78) Lieutenant Colonel Board (see Exhibit K).

Applicant submitted additional information on 21 Aug 92 and 7 Dec 93
and requested reconsideration.  The Board examined the requests  and
concluded that they did not meet the  criteria  for  reconsideration
(Exhibit L and M).

On  19 May  95,  applicant  submitted  additional  information   and
requested reconsideration.  On 12 Jul 95, the Board  considered  and
denied his request for reconsideration (Exhibit N).

On 27 Aug 97, a statement was  provided  from  a  retired  brigadier
general indicating the Board did not hear applicant’s  case  on  its
merits (Exhibit O).

On  22 Dec  98,  the  AFBCMR  responded  to  the  general’s   letter
(Exhibit P)   and   the   applicant’s   case   was   forwarded   for
reconsideration of his appeal.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    In an earlier consideration of applicant’s  requests,  it  was
determined that the application was not timely  filed  and  that  it
would not be in the interest of justice to  excuse  the  failure  to
file the application in a timely manner.  However, we find  that  it
would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to  timely
file.

3.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate  the  existence  of   probable   error   or   injustice.
Applicant’s numerous assertions that the reviewer of  the  contested
OER was unduly influenced by  the  rater’s  last  statement  on  the
contested report regarding his promotion potential which resulted in
his receiving a “2” rating are duly noted.  He asserts that  had  it
not been for this OER, he would have been promoted to the  grade  of
lieutenant  colonel.   We  have  thoroughly  reviewed  the  numerous
statements provided by  the  applicant  to  include  the  following:
Reviewer statements dated 11 Jun 91, 17 Jul 92, and an undated  one;
Rater statements dated 8 Dec 89 and 20 Jan 92; statement from former
Director of Personnel, Air Force  Office  of  Special  Investigation
(AFOSI), dated 20 May 92 and 2 Jul  92;  18 Jul  92  statement  from
former Commander, 3380th Air Base  Group,  Keesler  AFB;  21 Feb  95
statement from former Chief  of  Military  Personnel,  Headquarters,
AFOSI; 20 Jul 92 statement from former Commander,  92nd  Bomb  Wing;
undated statement from former Commander, Keesler Technical  Training
Center; 21 Jun 91 statement  from  former  Deputy  Commander,  AFOSI
District 8, Maxwell AFB; and lastly, the recent letter from BG B.

Even with the considerable support applicant has received  from  the
reviewer, rater, and other individuals with whom he worked,  we  are
not persuaded that this support overrides the rationale provided  by
the Air Force when this case was originally considered in 1992.   In
our  opinion,  the  contested  report  is  an  objective  and   fair
assessment of applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered by
senior Air Force officials who would have been clearly familiar with
the evaluation  process.   Further,  we  note  that  the  clarifying
statement from the  rater  was  included  in  applicant’s  selection
folder when he was considered by  the  Calendar  Year  1982  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Board.  Therefore,  we  are  persuaded  that  the
selection board members were clearly aware  of  the  intent  of  the
rater’s last statement on the contested  report.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we are persuaded the applicant  received  full  and  fair
consideration for promotion with his peers.

The authors of the  supporting  statements  are  entitled  to  their
opinions regarding the impact of the statement  on  the  applicant’s
promotion potential; however, in our opinion, this is  nothing  more
than  a  thinly  veiled  attempt  to  directly   promote   applicant
retroactively through the correction of records process.

Understandably, the applicant  was  disappointed  that  he  was  not
selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel,  but  we
note that an OER is but one of many factors  which  is  assessed  as
part of the whole person concept and in  the  applicant’s  case,  it
cannot be positively concluded that the report in question  was  the
sole reason for his nonselections.   In  fact,  we  note  that  this
report is but one of three reports that  were  rendered  during  the
controlled OER time frame and applicant did not  receive  top  block
ratings on those reports either.  Therefore, it is our opinion  that
the applicant has failed to establish that he has suffered either an
error or an injustice.  In view of the foregoing, and the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

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 16 February 1999, under the provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Member
                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit K.  ROP, dated 8 Apr 92, w/atchs.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Oct 92, w/atchs.
     Exhibit M.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Apr 94, w/atchs.
     Exhibit N.  Addendum to ROP, dated 31 Aug 95, w/atchs.
     Exhibit O.  Letter, dated 28 Aug 97, w/atchs.
     Exhibit P.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Dec 98, w/atch.



                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair