RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01341
                             INDEX CODE: 131.01, 131.09. 131.10

                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His nonselections for lieutenant colonel by  the  Calendar  Year
1987  (CY87),  CY89,  CY90,  and  CY91A  central  lieutenant   colonel
selection boards be declared null and void.

2.    His selection record be corrected to delete all  “corrected  by”
annotations on all documents.

3.    His record be corrected to reflect selection for  promotion  (in
the promotion zone) to the grade of lieutenant colonel as if  selected
by the CY87 Lieutenant Colonel Board.

4.    His record be corrected to reflect continuous active duty  since
his illegal separation based  on  promotion  nonselection  to  include
restoration of all pay, benefits, and any other entitlements.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When his file was considered by a special selection board  (SSB),  the
AFBCMR was denied the opportunity to review his request.   The  recent
Air Force Times article on SSBs confirmed what he had long  suspected:
SSBs cannot effectively resolve the promotion status of officers  with
record corrections.   When  his  corrected  file  was  ordered  to  be
considered by SSB, he assumed this process would be conducted squarely
in accordance with the law.  The Air Force documents he has assembled,
however, prove this was not the case.  Not only was the  SSB  held  in
direct violation of statute, the process itself was so  arbitrary  and
capricious that it could not accurately assess if he  would  or  would
not have been selected by the  original  board.   The  basis  for  his
request is two fold: (1) The Board is required  to  provide  full  and
fitting relief and direct promotion is within  the  authority  of  the
Board, and (2) A SSB cannot provide a full measure of relief.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  22  page  brief,  Staff
Summary Sheet, dated  1  September  1992,  Excerpt  Air  Force  Times,
Talking Paper on Selecting Benchmark Records, and Evidentiary Support-
Illegal Selection Boards with 10 Tabs.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was commissioned in the grade of second lieutenant,  Reserve
of the Air Force, and entered on extended  active  duty  (EAD)  on  21
March 1972.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY87,  CY89,  CY90  and  CY91A  Selection
Boards.  He was reconsidered and not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for  the  CY87  (30  January  1989)
board.

OER/OPR profile since 1985, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       01 May 85                   1-1-1
                       01 May 86                   1-1-1
                        22  Jul  86           SUPPLEMENTAL  EVALUATION
SHEET
                 #     01 Apr 87                   1-1-1
                       01 Apr 88                   1-1-1
                 ##    04 Feb 89             Meets Standards
                 ###   06 Oct 89             Meets Standards
                 ####  06 Oct 90             Meets Standards
                       06 Oct 91             Meets Standards


# Top report at time of CY87 board
## Top report at time of CY89 board.
### Top report at time of CY90 board.
#### Top report at time of CY91A board.

On 31 December 1991, the applicant was released from  extended  active
duty and on 1 January 1992, retired  in  the  grade  of  major  having
served 20 years and 4 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief  of  Ops,  Selection  Board  Secretariat,  Directorate   of
Personnel Program Mgt, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this application and states
that they will address the portion of the  application  pertaining  to
selection board processes.  The  applicant  contends  his  record  was
defective when it was considered by  the  SSB  and  alleges  corrected
reports are  known  by  AFPC  to  be  prejudicial.   They  find  these
allegations to be without merit.  Prior to the change in procedures in
1992, board members were briefed not to read anything into a corrected
or voided report and to ignore the dates the  corrections  were  made.
The procedures were not changed because they were defective but simply
as a better way to do business.  The  applicant  alleges  the  scoring
system used to determine selection by SSB is arbitrary and capricious.
 They do not agree.  The applicant attempts to discredit  the  scoring
scale used by the Air Force for many years on  its  selection  boards.
That scoring scale is from 6 to 10 in half  point  increments  and  as
long  as  each  board  member  applies   their   individual   standard
consistently throughout the scoring process, each consideree will  get
a fair and equitable evaluation.  The applicant alleges the  benchmark
records are loaded with the highest quality from among the  gray  zone
records and refers to a talking paper written three years  before  his
1987 lieutenant colonel board.  As this talking paper was accomplished
14 years ago, they cannot say with certainty what the author meant.  A
subsequent talking paper dated 31 March 1986 more  accurately  conveys
their criteria for selecting benchmark records.  Additionally, AFR 36-
89, 17 April 1992, also clarified procedures for  selecting  benchmark
records.  Despite the verbiage used in  the  7  January  1984  talking
paper, their current procedures for selecting benchmark  records  have
been unchanged  over  the  years  and  are  in  full  compliance  with
applicable guidelines.  Applicant contends that the SSB did  not  have
the required membership.  They disagree.  The composition of  the  SSB
that  considered  the  applicant’s  record  was  in  compliance   with
applicable statute,  i.e.,  the  board  consisted  of  at  least  five
officers from the Active Duty List, had a Reserve representative,  and
had a Joint Duty Representative appointed by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of  Staff.   Applicant  contends  the  board  president’s  role
violates restrictions of Department of Defense (DoDD).   They  do  not
agree.  The actions/responsibilities of each board  president  are  in
compliance with statute and policy.  The applicant  alleges  that  the
current selection board process does not allow for a majority  of  the
members of the board to ascertain that  all  officers  recommended  as
best qualified for promotion are also fully qualified  for  promotion.
They disagree.  After the panel resolves  the  gray  zone,  all  panel
members become aware of the lowest select and  the  highest  nonselect
and, as required by law, must determine if the lowest select is  fully
qualified for promotion.  The panel understands  all  records  scoring
higher than the lowest select are  also  fully  qualified.   Applicant
contends the Air Force selection  boards  are  in  violation  of  DoDD
1320.12  by  not  conducting  individual  selection  boards  for  each
competitive  category  and  preparing  individual  reports  for  those
boards.  Again, they disagree.  All Air Force promotion boards  comply
with this directive.  Each competitive category competes  only  within
itself, i.e., the chaplains only compete against other  chaplains  and
two different competitive categories, i.e., chaplains and nurses, will
never compete
against each other.  When boards  are  conducted  concurrently,  board
reports are consolidated into a single package for submission  to  the
Secretary of the Air Force.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,   reviewed   this
application and states that they will  address  the  issue  of  direct
promotion only.  Even if the applicant were  to  prove  the  promotion
system illegal (they do not believe he has), they  do  not  understand
how this correlates to his promotion status.  If the boards were found
to be illegal, the remedy would not be to promote  the  applicant.   A
reaccomplishment of the boards would be the only logical remedy.  But,
on what basis?  They find no evidence any corrections were  ever  made
to the applicant’s OSR.  They  find  the  often  used  compilation  of
memorandums and letters included in the applicant’s appeal package  to
be wholly without merit.  An opinion is not considered  new  evidence.
Therefore, they would be opposed to the board reopening  his  previous
case.  As they do not believe any correction to the applicant’s record
is necessary in relation to this  appeal,  SSB  consideration  is  not
warranted (or requested).  They recommend denial  of  the  applicant’s
request for direct promotion.  Based on the evidence  provided,  their
recommendation of denial is appropriate.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Retirements ranch, Directorate of  Personnel  Program  Management,
AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  they  will
address the retirement processing actions.  The  mandatory  retirement
date established for the applicant is provided  for  in  Section  632,
Title 10, U.S.C. and Section  637,  Title  10,  U.S.C.   Section  632,
requires  regular  officers  who  have  been  twice  nonselected   for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel to be  retired  no  later
than the 1st day of the seventh month after approval of the board that
nonselected him, unless member is continued under  the  provisions  of
Section 637 and DoDD 1320.8.  If selected for continuation  under  the
provision of Section 637, the officer must be retired (if eligible for
retirement) on the first day of the first month following the month in
which  he  completes  his  period  of  continued  service.    In   the
applicant’s case, that date was 1 January 1992.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is attached  at
Exhibit E.

The Staff Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application  and
states that the applicant has failed to prove an  error  or  injustice
warranting relief.  It is their opinion that this
application should be denied as untimely.  Moreover,  on  the  merits,
the applicant has failed to present relevant evidence of any error  or
injustice warranting relief.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
14 December 1998, for review  and  response.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice  of  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   In
regard to the applicant’s contention that the  correction  annotations
on his record were known to be prejudicial, we are  aware  that  there
have been many officers who have met Special Selection  Boards  (SSBs)
with their records annotated in the same manner as the applicant’s and
were selected for  promotion.   Consequently,  we  do  not  find  this
uncorroborated assertion sufficiently persuasive to conclude that  the
annotations to his record were detrimental to his chance of  selection
for promotion.

Applicant’s  contention  that  the  SSB  did  not  have  the  required
membership, is not supported  by  the  evidence  of  record.   To  the
contrary, it appears that the SSB composition was in  compliance  with
the  applicable  statute.   In  regard  to  the  applicant’s  numerous
assertions concerning the statutory compliance  of  central  selection
boards, the legality of the promotion recommendation process, and  the
legality of the SSB process are duly noted.  However, we do  not  find
these uncorroborated assertions, in and  of  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.    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  issue(s)   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 19 August 1999, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
      Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 May 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 5 Aug 98, w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Aug 98.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 17 Nov 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 30 Nov 98.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 98.






                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Panel Chair