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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  95-00101
            INDEX CODE:  100.07 131.09 136.01
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be reconstructed to show he completed Squadron Officer School
in-residence; any  AF  Form  77  (documenting  three  voided  performance
reports in June and December 1981 and June 1982 and  the  period  from  6
June 1984 until his reinstatement) not be made  visible  to  any  Special
Selection Board (SSB) considering his record; his  Total  Active  Federal
Military Service Date (TAFMSD) be properly recorded in the records placed
before the SSBs; and his records reflecting the foregoing  be  considered
by SSBs for promotion by the CY 1991 and CY 1992 Major Boards.

The Board reconsider its decision to deny  his  request  for  a  directed
promotion to the grade of major without the benefit of an SSB.

If the Board elects to deny these requests, in  the  alternative,  he  be
selectively retained to the 15-year point so as to  qualify  him  for  an
early retirement.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  disadvantaged  in  the  promotion  process  by  the  errors  and
injustices which the Board corrected in 1985 and he was the victim  of  a
“tainted” promotion process.

Complete copies of the applicant’s comments expanding  on  the  foregoing
contentions and the evidence provided in support of the appeal are at H.

___________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 25 October  1984,  the  Board  favorably  considered  the  applicant’s
requests that his Officer Performance Reports (OERs) closing 5 June 1981,
5 December 1981 and 5 June 1982, be declared void and  removed  from  his
records, and that  his  corrected  records  be  considered  by  SSBs  for
promotion to the grade of captain.  As a  result  of  his  selection  for
promotion by an SSB, the applicant, who had  been  released  from  active
duty on 5 June 1984 because of two nonselections, requested reinstatement
on active duty.  His request was granted by the Board on 7 August 1985.

On 15 March 1993, the applicant submitted an application requesting  that
a number of changes be made to his selection record, he be considered for
award of the Air Force Achievement Medal for the period June 1980 to June
1984, and he be promoted to the grade of major.  In the  alternative,  he
requested SSB considerations for promotion to major by the  CY  1989,  CY
1991 and CY 1992 major selection boards.  This application was considered
and denied by the Board on 23 November 1994 (see Exhibit C).

On 9 December 1997, the  Board  considered  and  denied  the  applicant’s
request that his nonselection for promotion to the grade of major be  set
aside (see AFBCMR 95-0101, with Exhibits A through G).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In earlier considerations of applications submitted by the applicant,
the  Board  essentially  determined  that  the  evidence   provided   was
insufficient to show that the applicant’s records  at  the  time  he  was
considered for promotion to the grade of  major  were  so  inaccurate  or
misleading that the duly constituted selection boards were unable to make
reasonable decisions concerning his  promotability  in  relation  to  his
peers.  We have reviewed  the  evidence  provided  with  the  applicant’s
latest submission and do not find it sufficient to  support  findings  to
the contrary.

2.  The new evidence by the applicant relates to procedures used  in  the
processing of PRFs for his above the zone consideration for promotion  to
major by the CY 1992 board and  his  below  the  zone  consideration  for
promotion to major by the CY 1989 board.

    a.  The applicant’s  submission  contains  no  direct  allegation  of
wrongdoing concerning the preparation of his PRF  for  consideration  for
the CY 1989 board -- merely that the letter provided is an example of the
“tainted” promotion process then in effect.  Therefore, we are unable  to
determine what significance the applicant believes this document  has  on
specific matters raised in his case nor have we seen any indication  that
the procedures discussed in the letter violated the pertinent law or  Air
Force regulations.  We note that the letter pertains to  the  preparation
of PRFs for majors by the CY 1989 board and there is no  indication  that
either the IG or any other  reviewing  authorities  determined  that  the
procedures used for this selection board were improper.

    b.  As to the CY 1992 board, we are aware that as a result of  an  IG
inquiry, it was determined  that  an  AFMC  senior  rater  used  academic
education level and PME completion and used an evaluation  board  process
to  rank-order  eligibles  for  the  1992  major  promotion  cycle.   The
applicant was considered for promotion to major by the CY 1992C selection
board.  There is no indication that the CY 1991 PRFs for  captains  under
consideration for promotion to major in the pertinent review  group  were
affected.  We are also aware that all PRFs and ROPs  prepared  under  the
errant process were “recalled” by command authorities and reevaluated  by
a new senior rater and that all eligible officers were to receive written
notification of this procedures.  Because of the passage  of  time  since
the above events took place, Air Force authorities are unable  to  verify
whether the applicant was among  those  so  notified.   However,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we are unwilling to assume that  the
applicant’s record did not undergo this  process  if  he  was  among  the
eligibles.

3.  The applicant’s complaints concerning the  AF  Forms  77  documenting
periods when reports were either voided or he was not on active duty  and
his TAFMSD as reflected in his selection records are noted.  With  regard
to the former issue, there is no indication that the  AF  Forms  77  were
prepared in a manner contrary to the governing  regulation  or  that  the
applicant was treated differently than other similarly situated officers.
 As to the issue of his erroneous TAFMSD on his Officer Selection  Briefs
(OSB), we remain unconvinced by the applicant’s latest submission that as
a result of this error, the selection boards were deprived of  sufficient
information  on  which  to  base  their  determination   concerning   the
applicant’s potential for service in the higher grade  when  compared  to
his peers.

4.  The applicant continues to assert  that  the  course  of  his  career
subsequent to  the  time  he  was  reinstated  on  active  duty  and  his
nonselections for promotion were the result of the effects of the removal
of his OERs closing in June and December 1981, and  June  1982,  and  the
absence of performance reports in his record for  the  period  June  1984
until he returned to active duty in  January  1986,  and,  therefore,  in
order to afford him full and complete  relief,  he  is  entitled  to  the
extraordinary relief requested in this application.  However, we are  not
persuaded by the applicant’s most recent  submission  that  this  is  the
case.  More to the point, we  are  not  convinced  that  the  applicant’s
service subsequent to his restoration was so blighted by the  changes  to
his earlier record that he was unable  to  recover  and  build  a  viable
performance record or that the selection boards which considered him  for
promotion to major reviewed a record which was so  inadequate  that  they
were unable to objectively assess the applicant’s records  against  those
of his peers.

5.  Accordingly, in view of the above and the absence of evidence,  other
than the applicant’s unsupported allegations,  which  would  lead  us  to
conclude the contrary, we are not  inclined  to  favorably  consider  his
requests for changes to his records, for promotion, or for  consideration
by SSBs.  Furthermore, we do not find the evidence  presented  sufficient
to warrant a finding that the applicant’s separation on  31  August  1993
was erroneous or unjust, or that the circumstances of  his  case  warrant
extraordinary relief in the form of his continuation until December  1994
to qualify him  for  retirement  under  the  Temporary  Early  Retirement
Authority (TERA).

6.  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 25 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
      Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 7 April 1998, with
                attachments.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair