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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03007
            INDEX CODE:  100.07

            COUNSEL:  MICHAEL T. GARRETT

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program  Consideration,  dated
21 Dec 96, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 10 Dec 98,  the  Board  considered  an  appeal  pertaining  to  the
applicant, in which he requested that the nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, initiated on 10 Sep 96, and imposed on 19 Sep 96,  be  set
aside and removed from his records; the AF Form 418, dated 21 Dec  96,
be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his  records;   the   Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) closing  22  Oct  97  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records; the Unfavorable Information File  (UIF)  and
any and all documents contained therein, to include the removal of any
letters of reprimand (LORs) since the Article 15, be declared void and
removed from his records; and,  he  be  given  supplemental  promotion
consideration for all test cycles that have transpired since the  date
of the  Article  15.   The  Board  recommended  that  his  records  be
corrected to show that the nonjudicial punishment  under  Article  15,
imposed on 19 Sep 96, and the AF Form 366, Record  of  Proceedings  of
Vacation of suspended Nonjudicial Punishment,  dated  19  Dec  96,  be
voided and expunged from his records, and all rights, privileges,  and
property of which he may have been deprived be restored; and, that the
EPR closing 22 Oct 97, be declared void and removed from his  records.
The recommendation of the Board was  approved  by  the  Director,  Air
Force Review Boards Agency on 9 Dec 96.  However, the Board denied the
portion of the appeal pertaining to the AF  Form  418,  UIF  and  LORs
contained  therein,  and  supplemental  promotion  consideration  (see
AFBCMR 97-03007, with Exhibits A through G).

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System reflects that the
applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade  of  senior
airman, effective and with date of rank (DOR) of 19 Sep 96.  His Total
Active Federal Military Service  Date  (TAFMSD)  is  12  Jun  78.   He
entered his  most-recent  enlistment  on  29 December  1993,  when  he
reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  He has  an  established  date  of
separation and expiration of term of service of 28 October 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After a meeting with his commander, on 21 Dec 96, he signed a blank AF
Form 418 with the understanding  that  he  would  be  recommended  for
reenlistment.

Five months (5)  prior  to  the  AF  Form  418,  he  received  an  EPR
(closing 30 Jul 96) with an overall rating of “4.”  The report  stated
that  he  was  an  excellent  performer;  exemplified   top   military
standards, set the  example  for  others,  consistently  exceeded  all
training requirements, and  was  consistently  able  to  organize  and
express ideas clearly and concisely.   Both  the  rater  and  indorser
recommendations were that he was ready for promotion.   The  commander
concurred with the recommendations.

The only negative impact on  his  duty  performance  was  due  to  the
commander’s personal vendetta to have his military career destroyed.

His behavior did not tarnish the image of the Air Force in the eyes of
the local community.  In fact, it was the commander’s behavior, in his
personal vendetta against him that tarnished the Air  Force  image  in
the eyes of the local community.

He has provided letters from individuals who worked directly with  him
or in the same area as he did.  None of them saw anything  that  would
convince them that it was not in  the  best  interest  of  the  United
States Air Force that he continue his service.

In support of his appeal, the  applicant  provided  a  statement  from
counsel, copies of his EPRs and Avionics Flight  Manning  sheets,  and
supportive statements.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In  earlier  findings,  we  determined  that  there  was  insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action  regarding  the  applicant’s
request that the AF Form 418 be declared void  and  removed  from  his
records.  We have reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission  and
find the evidence provided insufficient to warrant a reversal  of  our
previous determination in this case. Reenlistment in the Air Force  is
a privilege and not a right.  Only those individuals who  consistently
demonstrate  the  qualities  necessary  for  continued   service   are
retained.  Apparently, the applicant’s commander did not  believe  the
applicant  demonstrated  the  appropriate  qualities.   We  noted  the
statements provided in the applicant’s behalf.  However, none  of  the
statements  were  from  the  individual  responsible  for   making   a
recommendation   regarding   his   qualification   for   reenlistment.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded that  the  issues  relating  to  his
nonselection  for  reenlistment,  other  than  the  Article  15,  were
erroneous, thereby warranting removal of the AF Form 418 and  allowing
his reenlistment.  In view of the above, and in the absence  of  clear
and convincing evidence that the information used as a basis  for  the
applicant’s nonselection for reenlistment was erroneous, or there  was
an abuse of discretionary authority, we are not inclined to substitute
our judgment for the commander who was closer to events.  Accordingly,
the applicant’s request is again 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 2 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit H.  Letter, counsel, dated 25 May 99, w/atchs.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair