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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  93-06562
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration  by
the CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 16  Nov  92,  be
voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

The PRF be upgraded to a “Definitely Promote.”

The Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC),
citation be included in his Officer Selection Record (OSR).

His nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  be
set aside, as well as  his  selection  for  early  retirement  by  the
Selective Early Retirement Board.

He directly promoted to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  as  though
selected by the CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

The applicant is a former Regular Air Force officer who was  honorably
relieved from active duty on 31 Aug 94 and retired  in  the  grade  of
major, effective 1 Sep 94.  He had served 17 years  and  3  months  on
active duty.

On 27 Sep 94, the Board  considered  and  denied  an  application  for
correction of military records pertaining to the applicant,  in  which
he  requested  that  he  be  given  SSB  consideration  by  the  CY92B
Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 16 Nov 92 (see AFBCMR  93-
06562), with Exhibit A through D).

On 17 Sep 96, the Board again considered and  denied  his  appeal,  in
which he requested that the PRF  prepared  for  consideration  by  the
CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 16 Nov 92,
be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF (see Addendum to ROP,
with Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His PRF was factually incorrect and factually incomplete.

The “Top Promote” recommendations were illegal  and  totally  contrary
to the stated Air Force requirement for the Officer Evaluation  System
(OES) to be consistently applied Air Force wide.

The decorations  portion  of  his  file  was  in  error  when  he  was
considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the
CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Board.

The Air Force Selection Boards violates statute and Department of  the
Defense (DOD) directives.

A Special Selection Board cannot provide a full measure of relief.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  ACC  Top  Promote
Summary, Board  member  observations,  a  worksheet,  and  a  document
entitled “Evidentiary Support:  Illegal Selection Boards.”

A complete copy of the applicant’s request for reconsideration  is  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the USAF  Officer  Evaluation  Boards
Section, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed the applicant’s most  recent  submission
and indicated that prior to the CY92B board,  the  applicant  received
his PRF approximately 30 days prior to the board.  At  that  time,  he
had two options.  If he believed that the PRF was factually  incorrect
and incomplete, he could have approached his senior  rater  and  asked
for the PRF to be rewritten.  If this avenue failed, the applicant had
the legal right to write to the Board President.  DPPPE indicated they
are unaware that the applicant followed either avenue.   According  to
DPPPE, a PRF  is  considered  to  be  an  accurate  assessment  of  an
officer’s ability when it is rendered.  In order to rewrite Section IV
of a PRF and to upgrade a PRF rating, there needs to be a demonstrated
material error in the PRF or in how the PRF was prepared.

A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit G.

The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed  the  applicant’s
submission and addressed the  portion  of  his  appeal  pertaining  to
“Defective Selection Boards.”

A complete copy of the DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit H.

The Appeals and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the  applicant’s
submission and provided an advisory addressing the applicant’s request
for upgrade of the PRF, direct promotion, and  the  decoration  issue.
In DPPPA’s  opinion,  no  correction  to  the  applicant’s  record  is
necessary in relation to this appeal.

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit I.

The  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  the
applicant’s  submission  and  stated  that,  in  their  opinion,   the
applicant’s request for reconsideration should be  denied.   According
to JA, the applicant has failed to meet  the  requisite  criteria  for
reconsideration and, on the merits, has  failed  to  present  relevant
evidence of any error or injustice warranting relief.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that AFPC has  again  ignored
the issues.  Therefore, he asks that the Board simply  dismiss  AFPC’s
comments.  In his view, they show neither him nor the Board  the  mere
courtesy of following the Board’s own regulation.

Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
attached at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In earlier findings, we determined  that  there  was  insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action  regarding  the  applicant’s
request for SSB consideration by the CY92B Lieutenant  Colonel  Board,
and, his subsequent request that the PRF prepared for consideration by
the CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Board  be  voided  and  replaced  with  a
reaccomplished PRF,  and  he  be  given  SSB  consideration  with  his
corrected record.  In addition to those requests,  the  applicant  now
also requests that the PRF be upgraded to a “Definitely Promote,”  his
nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel and his
selection by the SERB Board be set aside, and he be directly  promoted
to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  We have reviewed the  applicant’s
most recent submission and we do not find it  sufficient  to  override
the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force   offices   of   primary
responsibility  (OPRs).   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  sufficient
evidence to the contrary, we agree with  the  recommendations  of  the
OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice.   Accordingly,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

2.  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 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 22 Jun 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member
      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Jul 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Jun 98.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 6 Aug 98.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 26 Aug 98.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 28 Oct 98.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Nov 98.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, applicant, dated 24 Dec 98, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair