RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00272
                 INDEX CODE:  131

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His nonselections for promotion to the  grade  of  major,  by  the
Calendar Year 1986B (CY86B) promotion board,  and  subsequent  special
selection board (SSB) considerations, be set aside.

2.  All “corrected” annotations in his  Officer  Selection  Record  be
removed.

3.  His record be corrected to reflect his selection for promotion  to
the grade of major (In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ)) as if selected by the
CY86B Central Major Selection Board.

4.  He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  (active)  with
the same date as his Air Force Reserve promotion.

5.  His records be corrected to reflect continuous active duty,  since
separation, based on promotion nonselection to include restoration  of
all pay, benefits, and any other entitlements, to include carryover of
the maximum amount of leave for the period he was not on active  duty.


5.  In the applicant’s response  to  the  Air  Force  evaluations,  he
requests that the AFBCMR direct his record  be  corrected  to  reflect
selection for promotion to the grade of Reserve major  and  lieutenant
colonel with reinstatement to active duty.   Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) consideration cannot provide a full measure of relief.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His previous  considerations  for  promotion  by  central  boards  and
special selection boards (SSBs), were tainted by  a  defective  record
and a selection board  system  that  was  conducted  in  violation  of
federal law, Department of Defense  Directive  (DoDD)  and  Air  Force
regulations.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 January 1976, applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the
Reserve of the Air Force and ordered to extended active duty.

Applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of
major by the CY86B (1 Dec  86)  and  CY87(28  Sep  87)  Central  Major
Selection Boards.

Applicant’s Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) profile, while  serving
in the Regular Air Force, is as follows:

          PERIOD ENDING            OVERALL EVALUATION

            11 Nov 82                  1-1-1
            11 Nov 83                  1-1-1
            11 Nov 84                  1-1-1
            24 Jul 85                  1-1-1
          # 30 Apr 86              Report removed By Order of the
                                     Chief of Staff, USAF
         ## 30 Apr 87                  1-1-1
            30 Sep 87                  1-X-1
            31 Mar 88                  1-1-1

#   Top report at time of nonselection to the grade of major by
    the CY86B Central Major Selection Board

##  Top report at time of nonselection to the grade of major by
    the CY87 Central Major Selection Board

Applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Air  Force  on  30
April 1988 under the provisions of AFR 36-12.  He served 16  years,  8
months and 25 days of service for separation pay purposes.

On 15 May 1989, applicant was appointed a captain in  the  Reserve  of
the Air Force.  He is currently serving in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel as a non-extended active duty (non-EAD) reserve officer.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief of Operations, Selection Board  Secretariat,  HQ  AFPC/DPPB,
reviewed  the  application  and  addresses   applicant’s   contentions
regarding “Tainted Special Selection Board” and  “Defective  Selection
Boards - Violation of Statute  and  Department  of  Defense  Directive
(DoDD).”  AFPC/DPPB does not agree with applicant’s  contentions  that
his promotion board was in violation of Sections 616 and 617, Title 10
U.S.C.   He  cites  the  Roane  court  decision   concerning   alleged
violations  and  AFPC/DPPB  defers  the  response  to  AFPC/JA.   Upon
approval and publishing of DoDD 1320.12,  4  Feb  92,  all  Air  Force
promotion boards were placed on hold pending a complete rewrite of AFR
36-89, Promotion of Active duty List Officers (subsequently superseded
by AFI 36-2501).  Only after the new AFR 36-89  was  approved  by  the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and published 17 Apr  92,  did  the
promotion boards resume.

A complete copy of this evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPA,  states  that  the
applicant failed to prove error or injustice existed in regard to  any
of the issues raised in this appeal.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence
has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable  error  or
injustice in regard to the applicant’s request for direct promotion to
the grade of major, let alone to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel.
Direct promotion of the applicant  would  circumvent  the  competitive
nature of the  Air  Force  promotion  process.   AFPC/DPPPA  does  not
believe it would be  beneficial  to  the  Air  Force  to  restore  the
applicant to active duty.  Based on the lack  of  and  unsubstantiated
documentation  provided,  their   recommendations   are   appropriate.
AFPC/DPPPA recommends the application be time  barred  or  denied  for
lack of merit.

A complete copy of this evaluation, with attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit D.


The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, reviewed the application  and
states that it is AFPC/JA’s opinion that  the  application  should  be
denied.  Applicant has failed to  present  relevant  evidence  of  any
error or injustice warranting relief.

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


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  provided   two
responses, dated 14 July 1998 and 25 August  1998,  with  attachments,
which are attached at Exhibits G and H.

_________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD

1.  The application was not filed within three years after the alleged
error or injustice was  discovered,  or  reasonably  could  have  been
discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States  Code
(10 USC  1552,  and  Air  Force  Instruction  36-2603.   Although  the
applicant asserts a date of discovery which would,  if  correct,  make
the application timely, the essential facts which  gave  rise  to  the
application were known to applicant long before the asserted  date  of
discovery.  Knowledge of those facts constituted the date of discovery
and the beginning of the  three-year  period  for  filing.   Thus  the
application is untimely.

2.  Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552  permits  us,  in  our  discretion,  to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice.  We have  carefully
reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and we  do  not
find a  sufficient  basis  to  excuse  the  untimely  filing  of  this
application.  The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay
in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises  issues  of
error or injustice which require resolution  on  the  merits  at  this
time.  Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application.

3.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient  to  give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

DECISION OF THE BOARD:

The application was not timely filed  and  it  would  not  be  in  the
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision  of
the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
                  Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, unsigned, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Officer Selection Folder.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 4 Mar 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Mar 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 1 May 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 98.
   Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 14 Jul 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 25 Aug 98, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair