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

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  88-02856

                       COUNSEL:  NONE


                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel; or,  that  the  AF
Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation  Sheet,  which  replaced  two  voided
Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs),  be  altered  to  inform  promotion
boards of the reason for the removal of the reports.  If the  AF  Form
77 is altered, she  be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB).
_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

Pursuant to the applicant’s request, the AFBCMR  removed  two  Officer
Performance Reports (OERs), closing 14 Aug 81 and 19 Dec 87, on 22 Nov
88; and, on 26 Sep 96, amended an Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR),
closing 10 Apr 92, updated  her  Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB)  and
granted Special Selection Board (SSB) promotion consideration  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel for  CY94A  and  CY96  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel  Selection  Boards.   An   accounting   of   the   facts   and
circumstances surrounding the appeals and the Board’s earlier findings
are set forth in the Records of Proceedings,  which  are  attached  at
Exhibits H and I.

A similar appeal concerning the applicant’s most  recent  request  was
considered and denied by the Board  on  6  Oct  98.   The  applicant’s
assertion is that she was placed at  an  unfair  disadvantage  in  the
promotion process when she was considered for promotion to  lieutenant
colonel by the absence of the two OERs.  A  summary  of  the  evidence
considered by the Board and the rationale  for  its  decision  is  set
forth in the Addendum to Record of Proceedings, which is  attached  at
Exhibit Q.

On 27 Feb  99,  applicant  again  submitted  additional  evidence  and
requested reconsideration of her most recent appeal.   The  additional
evidence consisted of letters of support from four senior officers who
state they have extensive experience on Air  Force  Central  Promotion
and Squadron Commander Selection Boards, and a copy of her most recent
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the P0599A Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board (Exhibit R).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The additional four testimonials from  senior  officers  validate  the
effect of AF Form 77s with regard to their adverse affect on promotion
boards.   These  senior  officers,  with   extensive   central   board
experience,  strongly  indicate  that  writing  to  promotion   boards
regarding the reason for a missing performance  report  would  be  (1)
extremely unwise and (2)  against  strong  and  widespread  Air  Force
practice.  She has also included a copy of a post-board briefing  used
by a member of the CY94 Lieutenant Colonel Board, the board  on  which
she was passed over for promotion, to brief other officers on how  the
selection board considered the officers before it.  This board  member
offered very practical advice and counsel and had a somewhat  negative
view of writing  the  promotion  board.   In  particular,  he  advised
officers that if they wrote to a promotion board “not to  highlight  a
flaw.”  With regard to the issue of writing the board  president,  she
also provided a copy of a memo written by the former  vice  commander,
377 Air Base Wing, who was a member of  the  CY93  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board.  After reviewing  the  additional  evidence  presented,
there can be no doubt that a  missing  performance  report  is  indeed
considered a flaw by many, if not most, promotion board  members.   To
write the board would have been foolish  and  very  much  against  the
“real” Air Force policy.

The testimony provided shows that those with missing reports suffer by
comparison with their peers who do not  have  missing  reports.   This
influence  is  not  “reasonable.”   After  reviewing  the   additional
evidence, if the Board still believes her position  remains  supported
despite the weight of this testimony, she stands ready to  provide  an
even greater weight of such testimony.

She asks the Board to  note  that  General  XXXX  has  stated  he  has
additional relevant testimony which he can  provide  directly  to  the
Board considering her supplemental board.  Fairness and justice  would
dictate that the Board receive General XXXX‘s testimony.

She formally requests a personal appearance before the Board  when  it
reconsiders her case in order to answer any questions the Board  might
have.

A complete copy of her submission is appended at Exhibit S.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After a careful reconsideration of the  applicant’s  requests  and
her most recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently  compelling
to warrant a revision of the Board’s  earlier  determination  in  this
case.

    a.  We noted the “testimonials” on how a selection board may  view
an AF Form 77 or a letter to the board president; however, we were not
convinced that the applicant was the  victim  of  an  injustice.   The
requirement to insert, in place of a voided performance report, an Air
Force Form 77 without a detailed explanation may seem  unfair  to  the
applicant; however, such action was required by Air Force  policy  and
the applicant has provided  no  rational  reason  why  she  should  be
treated differently than other similarly situated officers.   Hundreds
of officers have had performance reports removed  from  their  records
and replaced with AF Forms 77.  The authors of the statements provided
for our review expressed their reservations concerning the fairness of
such a practice vis-à-vis the perceptions of selection board  members.
While they are entitled to their opinions, we  do  not  believe  their
statements establish that selection board members  routinely  fail  to
fulfill their duty  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  governing
statute and the instructions issued by the Secretary of the Air Force.

    b.  We observe that the AF Forms 77 document  reports  which  were
removed from the applicant’s records 10 years ago.   The  cited  forms
replaced OERs rendered nearly 12 and 18 years ago while the  applicant
was serving in the grade of captain.  At the time  the  applicant  was
considered for promotion by the CY 1994 lieutenant  colonel  selection
board, the top report on file was the 6 July 1994 OPR  and  the  most-
recent voided report was 8  reports  deep  in  her  Officer  Selection
Record (OSR); the second was 18 reports down.  The board had available
on top 5 reports documenting her performance as a major.  When she was
first considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, the
two voided reports represented a period of approximately 11 months  of
her performance record spanning a 15-year period.   While  we  realize
all performance reports are important, it appears applicant’s sterling
performance  was  adequately  recorded  in  her  more  recent  Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) and that these reports would, in our  view,
be more than sufficient to offset arguments  concerning  any  possible
promotion injustice resulting from the absence of a recordation of her
performance in the  long-ago  rendered  now-voided  reports.   To  the
contrary, it is our opinion that  the  regularly  scheduled  selection
boards and the SSBs which reviewed the  applicant’s  corrected  record
had  sufficient  documentation  pertaining  to  her  performance   and
demonstrated potential for service in the higher  grade  in  order  to
make reasonable determinations concerning her promotability.

    c.  We noted the supportive statements indicating, in the writers’
opinions,  letters  written  by  considerees  to  a  selection   board
president are construed  in  a  negative  sense.   We  appreciate  the
individuals expressing their own personal  perception  on  the  issue;
however, we are not inclined to agree.  In this respect,  we  are  not
about to presume that writing to the board president is prejudicial to
the member.  It is our belief that  this  is  another  means  for  the
member to provide additional information to a selection board.  It  is
an optional tool and not intended to be discriminatory.

    d.  In summation, after an exhaustive review of this case, we  are
convinced that applicant was previously afforded appropriate relief as
a result of the considerations of her applications to this Board.   In
the absence of  clear-cut  evidence  to  the  contrary  or  persuasive
evidence indicating that the duly constituted selection boards did not
have access to a reasonably accurate record on  which  to  base  their
decisions, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend further
relief.

2.  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   issues   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 2 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                  MS. Ann L. Heidig, Member
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit P.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Dec 98.
   Exhibit Q.  Letter from applicant, dated 27 Feb 99, w/atchs.




                                CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair