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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  94-00134

                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE

On 22 May 1991, the Board considered applicant's 20  June  1990  application
requesting his officer effectiveness report (OER), closing 31 May  1986,  be
removed  from  his  records,  he  receive  Special  Selection  Board   (SSB)
consideration, and his senior rater be provided the opportunity to submit  a
new Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for  the  SSB.   He  also  requested
that one of his nonselections for promotion be set aside, but his  case  was
not received in sufficient time to honor this request.   The  Board  granted
removal of  the  OER,  promotion  consideration  by  SSB,  and  allowed  the
applicant 60 days in which to submit a new PRF for  the  SSB  consideration.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G.

By letter, dated 19 February 1992,  the  AFBCMR  was  advised  that  in  the
opinion of the voting membership of the SSB, the applicant would  have  been
selected for promotion to major  by  the  CY88  Central  Major  Board.   The
applicant provided a copy of his notification letter indicating that,  on  8
April 1992, the Senate had approved the results of the SSB he  met.   On  13
May 1992, the applicant’s records were corrected to show  that  he  was  not
discharged from all appointments on 31 July 1990, but on that  date  he  was
ordered PCS to his home of  record  or  home  of  selection  (whichever  was
appropriate) pending further orders.    A complete copy  of  the  Record  of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H.

On  4  March   1993,   applicant   submitted   an   application   requesting
reconsideration of his  leave  adjustment  and  reimbursement  of  part-time
earnings that was used to offset his settlement for reinstatement of  active
duty.  (Exhibit I)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Claims Branch, Directorate of Debt and Claims  Management,  DFAS-
DE/FYCC, reviewed this application and states that the applicant  states  he
submitted an appeal  to  the  General  Accounting  Office  (GAO)  requesting
reimbursement of $2,324.89 of $7,542.16 civilian earnings deducted from  his
settlement which he  states  he  earned  from  part-time  employment.   They
contacted the GAO on 15 July 1993 and were informed there was no  record  of
an appeal filed by the applicant.  The applicant received a  partial  waiver
approved by the GAO on 16 March 1993 for the  22½   days  of  accrued  leave
lost and they feel he has been given all the consideration  allowed  on  his
leave settlement.  Based on the GAO decisions, they find the  applicant  has
been granted everything allowable by  law.   There  has  been  no  error  or
injustice, therefore, they recommend denial of applicant's request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at  Exhibit
J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he was  paid  for
the leave he lost in 1991, which came to 22.5 days ($2,079.45) but  did  not
pay him the additional 30 days of leave he accrued between  1  October  1991
and 30 September 1992, and lost because he did not get an  assignment  until
29 October 1992.  He did not come back on active duty until he  reported  in
at Osan AB, Korea on 29 October 1992.  His financial  records  did  not  get
corrected/updated until February 1993 while he was stationed in  Korea.   He
realizes 10 USC Section 1552 and comptroller decision  B224964  provide  for
civilian earnings to be deducted from  readjustment  pay;  however,  neither
one specifically addresses part-time employment.  In lieu of a clear  ruling
on full-time vice part-time civilian earnings,  he  contends  he  should  be
awarded the $2,324.89 he would have been entitled to earn  while  on  active
duty.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, General Law Division, Office of The Judge  Advocate  General,  HQ
USAF/JAG, reviewed this application and states  that  the  AFBCMR  does  not
have the authority to resolve the matters brought forth by the applicant  in
his request.  In short there is no military record  to  be  corrected.   The
applicant has received the benefit of the correction of his records, and  it
is now the law and the proper interpretation of that law that stands in  the
way of the relief he seeks.  That is a matter between the applicant and  the
GAO.  They recommend the AFBCMR so inform the applicant and  further  advise
him that his avenue of recourse is the GAO.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

On 3 September 1996, the AFBCMR notified the applicant that as indicated  in
the letter from HQ USAF/JAG, the corrective action he requested  was  not  a
matter which could be resolved through the AFBCMR.  It  was  suggested  that
he pursue his requests through the GAO.  (Exhibit M).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states as the Board  has
the broad prerogative to correct  an  error,  he  asks  they  exercise  this
prerogative to allow full credit for  the  leave  that  he  lost  and  never
recovered as a result of the correction of his military  records.   He  sees
at least two options which the Board could  take  to  provide  such  relief.
First, the Board could adjust his date of separation by  adding  two  months
to his date of separation and ordering his reinstatement  for  this  limited
period.  An equally viable option would be to correct  his  record  to  show
that he had sixty days leave accrued which were sold back when he  separated
as a result of his nonselection  to  lieutenant  colonel.   In  summary,  he
believes the evidence is indeed clear.  He has not been made  whole  by  the
initial decision of the Board.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Deputy Chief,  General  Law  Division,  Office  of  The  Judge  Advocate
General, HQ USAF/JAG, reviewed this application and states  that  they  have
reviewed the corrective actions  proposed  by  the  applicant  and  reaffirm
their previous opinion that the AFBCMR does not have authority to grant  the
relief sought by the applicant.  They believe this is a matter  between  the
applicant and the  GAO.   Consequently,  because  the  applicant  has  taken
exception to the previous ruling of the GAO, reconsideration of this  ruling
should be directed to the GAO.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit O.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that at issue  is
the leave accrued as a result of the Board’s  correction  to  his  file  but
which was later taken away when final settlement  was  reached.   The  Board
has considered such situations previously, as  have  the  courts.   He  only
asks it make him whole and correct his record to allow carry  over  of  this
leave.  It is certainly within the Board’s prerogative to do so  as  it  has
been done in the past.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit Q.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  The comments  of  the  Office  of
the Judge Advocate General are supported by  the  evidence  of  record.   We
find no evidence of error in this case and after  thoroughly  reviewing  the
documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's  appeal,  we
do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.   In  addition,  we  would
recommend that  the  applicant  pursue  his  requests  through  the  General
Accounting Office as this would be an avenue  of  recourse.   Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 20 April 1999, under the provisions of AFR 31-3:

      Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
      Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit G. ROP, dated 17 Jun 91.
      Exhibit H. ROP, dated 13 May 92, w/atch.
      Exhibit I. DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 93, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J. Letter, DFAS-DE/FYCC, dated 13 Sep 93, w/atchs.
      Exhibit K. Applicant’s Response, dated 10 Feb 95, w/atchs.
      Exhibit L. Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 29 Aug 95.
      Exhibit M. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Sep 96, w/atch.
      Exhibit N. Applicant’s Response, undated.
      Exhibit O. Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, undated.
      Exhibit P. Letters, AFBCMR, dated 12 Dec 94, 11 Jan 95,
                       12 Jul 96 w/atchs, 21 Apr 97, 25 Aug 97.
      Exhibit Q. Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Oct 97, w/atchs.




                             MARTHA MAUST
                             Panel Chair