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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  96-00856
                 INDEX CODE:  131

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 1 October 1996, the Board considered an application for  correction
of military records pertaining to subject  applicant.   The  applicant
requested that the nonselections for promotion to the grade of colonel
by the Calendar Year 1993A (CY93A),  and  subsequent  Central  Colonel
Boards, be declared void; that he receive a direct  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel as if selected by the  CY93A  (in-the-promotion  zone
(IPZ)) Central Colonel Selection Board; and, that he receive all  pay,
benefits  and  other  entitlements  associated  with   a   retroactive
promotion to the grade of colonel.  In the alternative, he  asks  that
the Performance Recommendation  Form  (PRF),  reviewed  by  the  CY93A
Central Colonel Selection Board, be substituted with a  reaccomplished
PRF signed by  the  Senior  Rater;  and  that  he  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for
the CY93A board with the reaccomplished PRF in his record.

On 9 October 1996, the Board granted partial relief by directing  that
the applicant receive promotion consideration by  SSB  for  the  CY93A
Central Colonel Selection Board, to include  the  reaccomplished  PRF.
(A copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 9 October  1996,  is
attached at Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

The applicant has submitted a letter, dated 10 October  1997,  stating
that the AFBCMR corrected his PRF and directed SSB consideration  when
it granted relief under Docket Number 96-00856.  However,  since  that
decision, evidence has surfaced which proves the corrections  made  to
his record, and the SSB process  itself,  provided  neither  full  nor
fitting relief.  Applicant is now requesting that he receive a  direct
promotion to the grade of colonel as if selected by the Calendar  Year
1993A (CY93A) Central Colonel Selection Board.  (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There were defective Special Selection Boards (SSBs);  that  the  SSBs
considered a defective record; that the SSB did not have the  required
quorum; that the SSB scoring system was arbitrary and capricious;  and
that the defective selection boards were in violation of  Statute  and
Department of Defense (DoD) Directives.

Applicant’s 10 October 1997 letter and complete submission, to include
Evidentiary Support - Illegal Selection Boards, is attached at Exhibit
I.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Operations,  Selection  Board  Secretariat,  HQ  AFPC/DPPB,
states that they do not agree with  the  applicant’s  contention  with
regard to his record being defective when it  was  considered  by  the
Special Selection Board (SSB).  Applicant’s allegation  that  “voided”
reports are known  by  AFPC  to  be  prejudicial  and  that  AFPC  has
recommended officers who were not  even  on  active  duty  ‘fabricate’
missing evaluation forms to document the ‘break’ in their file.   This
allegation is without merit.

HQ  AFPC/DPPB  does  not  agree  with   the   applicant’s   additional
allegations with regard to the required quorum of the SSB, the scoring
system used to determine selection by SSB, the benchmark records,  the
violation of Sections 616 and 617, Title 10 U.S.C., and the  violation
of DoDD 1320.12.

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


The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition Division, HQ  AFPC/DPPP
states that they  are  unaware  of  any  type  of  recommendation  for
officers to “fabricate” missing evaluation forms to document breaks in
their records.  The applicant provides nothing  to  substantiate  this
contention.   As  to  the  contention  that  the  applicant’s   record
reflected nothing about his potential or performance  based  potential
with the AF Form 77 in  file,  the  applicant  requested  that  his  1
January 1988 Officer Effectiveness Report (OER)  be  voided  from  his
record.  His request was honored.  As such, the period of  the  report
was documented by using the AF Form 77.  To incorporate  the  days  of
supervision on the following 1 January 989 OPR would require that  the
evaluators concerned support such an action and the applicant does not
have this support.

The applicant states there is a 99.6% certainty  he  would  have  been
promoted to colonel based on the statistics he has  provided,  and  he
now contends AFPC was “silent” on this issue.  The applicant  did  not
compete for his Definitely Promote during the CY93A central  selection
board and it is feasible that his record is not as competitive as  the
benchmark records since he was nonselected when he was  considered  by
an SSB.

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


The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, states that the applicant now
contends that his record as presented  to  the  most  recent  SSB  was
defective and he reiterates that the SSB itself was held in  violation
of statute, citing what he refers to  as  newly  surfaced  “evidence.”
Applicant  has  submitted  nothing  that  meets   the   criteria   for
reconsideration.   His  brief  offers  either  evidence  that  is  not
relevant, evidence that was reasonably available at the  time  of  the
previous application, or  recycled  versions  of  the  same  arguments
offered previously.   Applicant  has  failed  to  prove  an  error  or
injustice warranting relief.

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 L.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
18 May 1998 for review and response.  Applicant provided  a  response,
undated,  received  by  the  AFBCMR   on   21 September   1998,   with
attachments, which is attached at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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, arbitrary and capricious benchmark records and,  the
legality of the special selection board (SSB) process, are duly noted.
 However, after a thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and
applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should receive  a
direct promotion to the grade  of  colonel,  as  if  promoted  by  the
Calendar Year 1993A (CY93A) Central Colonel Selection board with  back
pay and benefits.  We do not find applicant’s assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force.  Moreover, we observe that based on  the  correction
of his records in a previous action and, after an exhausted review and
consideration of his applications before us, we are convinced that the
applicant was afforded appropriate relief and his records  were  given
fair  and  equitable  consideration.   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
his burden that he 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 23 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit H.  ROP, dated 9 Oct 96.
   Exhibit I.  Applicant's Letter, dated 10 Oct 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 23 Jan 98.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Mar 98.
   Exhibit L.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 21 Apr 98.
   Exhibit M.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 May 98.
   Exhibit N.  Applicant’s Letter, undated, w/atchs.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair