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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  95-02111
                 INDEX CODE:  131

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 24 March 1997, the Board considered and denied an  application  for
correction of military records pertaining to subject  applicant.   The
applicant requested that three (3) Officer Performance Reports (OPRs),
for the periods closing 17 June 1989, 17 June 1990, and 21 March 1991,
be corrected to  reflect  recommendations  for  professional  military
education (PME).

Applicant also requested that she be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB)  for  the
Calendar Year  1994A  (CY94A)  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection
Board.  (A copy of the Record of  Proceedings  (ROP),  dated  24 March
1997, is attached at Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

The  applicant  has  submitted  a  letter,  dated  15  October   1997,
requesting that she  receive  a  direct  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel as if selected by the  Calendar  Year  1994  (CY94)
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The applicant contends that there  were  illegal  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) restrictions and asks  the  Board  to  read  a  statement
submitted by the Wing Commander, General H---, dated 3 April 1996.

Applicant alleges a tainted Promotion Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  for
the CY94 selection board.  She also alleges defective selection boards
and violation of Statute and Department of Defense  (DoD)  Directives.
Applicant  is  requesting  a   direct   promotion   stating   that   a
consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) cannot provide  a  full
and fitting measure of relief.

Applicant’s complete submission,  to  include  Evidentiary  Support  -
Illegal Selection Boards, is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Operations,  Selection  Board  Secretariat,  HQ  AFPC/DPPB,
states that they do not agree with the  applicant’s  contentions  with
regard to violations of sections  of  Title  10,  United  States  Code
(U.S.C.) and the board  president’s  role  violating  restrictions  of
Department  of  Defense  Directives  (DoDD).   Applicant’s  additional
statements are either incorrect or unfounded.  She also challenges the
scoring system  used  by  central  selection  boards  and  offers  her
opinions and interpretations which AFPC/DPPB does not agree with.

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


The Chief, Evaluations Programs Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPPE,  states  that,
with  regard  to  missing  Professional   Military   Education   (PME)
statements on the  applicant’s  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs),
closing June 1989, June 1990 and March 1991, there is no  sound  proof
that there was a command policy restricting her raters from  including
PME recommendations on her OPRs.  Since the OPRs were found to contain
no errors or be in violation of Air Force regulations, her claim  that
her record of performance (ROP)  was  incomplete  is  unsubstantiated.
Similarly, no verification was provided that her  Calendar  Year  1993
(CY93) Below-the-Zone “Promote” promotion  recommendation  form  (PRF)
was not included in her ROP.  The information in her record which  was
used to prepare the CY93 PRF was complete and thus available  for  the
preparation of her CY94 PRF.  Lastly, the “Top” Promote system used by
her command that the applicant contends was not applied  consistently,
was neither illegal or prohibited during the CY94  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Board.  There is no evidence provided that shows the
applicant received anything but fair and  equitable  treatment.   They
recommend the applicant’s request be denied.

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


The Senior Attorney-Advisor,  HQ  AFPC/JA,  states  that,  by  way  of
background, applicant filed a previous  application  with  the  AFBCMR
challenging OPRs she received while stationed at Seymour  Johnson  Air
Force Base (AFB).  She now requests  direct  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel,  relying  on  what  she  characterizes  as  newly  discovered
relevant evidence which proves the whole  process  by  which  she  was
evaluated and considered for promotion based  upon  those  [previously
challenged]  evaluations  was  contrary  to  statute,  directive,  and
regulation.  The  applicant  has  submitted  nothing  that  meets  the
criteria  for  reconsideration  based  on  newly  discovered  relevant
evidence.  Her brief offers no new evidence at all, but only a  series
of arguments supported almost exclusively by her opinions.

It  is  AFPC/JA’s   opinion   that   the   applicant’s   request   for
reconsideration should be denied.  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 copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  provided   two
responses, dated 15 July 1998 and 25 August  1998,  with  attachments,
which are attached at Exhibits M and N.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  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
contentions  concerning  the  statutory  compliance  of  the   central
selection   boards,   illegal   Officer   Performance   Report   (OPR)
restrictions, a tainted Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF)  for  the
Calendar  Year  1994  (CY94)  selection  board   and   the   promotion
recommendation appeal process,  are  duly  noted.   However,  after  a
thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s  submission,
we are not persuaded that she should receive a direct promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel,  as  if  promoted  by  the  CY94  Central
Lieutenant Colonel  Selection  board.   We  do  not  find  applicant’s
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We therefore agree with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
her burden that she has suffered either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Therefore, we find no  compelling  basis  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 14 June 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603.

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
                  Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit G.  ROP, dated 24 Mar 97.
   Exhibit H.  Applicant's Letter, dated 15 Oct 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 20 Jan 98.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 Mar 98.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 3 Apr 98.
   Exhibit L.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Apr 98.
   Exhibit M.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 15 Jul 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit N.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 25 Aug 98, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair