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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  94-02626
            INDEX CODE:  100, 111.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His Officer Performance Report (OPR)  rendered  for  the  period
19 Dec  90  through  18 Dec  91  be  corrected  in  Section  III  (Job
Description) be  changed  from  Facilities  Plans  Officer  to  Chief,
Facilities Branch; or, in the alternative, the OPR be reaccomplished.

2.    His OPR rendered for the period 19 Dec 91 through 18 Dec  92  be
changed in Section II (Unit Mission Description) and Section III  (Job
Description) and the reviewer signature date be corrected; or, in  the
alternative, the OPR be reaccomplished.

3.    His OPR rendered for the period 19 Dec 92 through 22 Oct  93  be
declared void and removed from his records  and  a  corrected  report,
rendered for the period 19 Dec 92 through 11 Aug 93,  be  inserted  in
place of the voided report, with Section III and Section IV (Impact on
Mission Accomplishment)  and  relative  narrative  Section  VI  (Rater
Overall  Assessment)  and  Section  VII  (Additional   Rater   Overall
Assessment) be changed with the correct rater as Lt Col XXXX  and  Col
XXXX as the additional rater.

4.    His Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the Calendar  Year
1992C (CY92C) and CY93B Central Selection Boards be reaccomplished and
that the narrative comments be inserted in the CY92C PRF in Section IV
(Promotion Recommendation) and that he be reconsidered for  Definitely
Promote (DP) for both the CY92C and CY93B promotion cycles.

5.    His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the  93B  Major  Board  be
corrected in the “Overseas Duty History,” the “Academic Education” and
the “Assignment History” areas.

6.    He be awarded a secondary Air Force specialty  code  (AFSC)  for
the Security Policy career field from 1989 to 1993 if he is eligible.

_________________________________________________________________


RESUME OF CASE:

On 20 Jun 95, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request that
he be considered for promotion to the grade  of  major  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1993B (CY93B)  (6 Dec  93)
Major Board (see Exhibit E).

In an application, dated 28 Apr 98, the applicant provided  additional
information  and  requested  the  above  corrections  to  his   record
(Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Reports  &  Queries  Section,  AFPC/DPAPS1,  reviewed  the
application and indicated that based on  the  two  OPRs  (19 Dec  90 -
18 Dec 91 and 19 Dec 91 - 18 Dec 92), the duty  titles  do  match  the
duty history on the Officer Promotion Brief (OPB)  Because the  source
document for officer duty history is the  OPR,  their  office  has  no
authority to change duty titles unless the source document is changed.
 The OSB correctly reflects information on the source document OPRs.

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

The Chief,  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the PRF is the  responsibility  of  the
senior rater and unless proven otherwise, they consider it  to  be  an
accurate reflection of  the  officer’s  record  of  performance.   The
applicant shows no proof  that  these  reports  are  not  an  accurate
reflection of his performance.  In order to alter  his  PRF,  he  must
show senior rater and Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) support
for changing the  mission  and  job  descriptions  on  his  PRFs.   In
addition, there is no  Air  Force  requirement  to  have  Professional
Military Education (PME) or job recommendations on PRFs.  In regard to
his request to insert narrative comments  on  the  below-the-promotion
zone (BPZ) PRF, it was the senior rater’s decision at the time the PRF
was prepared to leave this section  blank.   There  is  no  Air  Force
requirement to have narrative comments  on  a  BPZ  PRF.   Again,  the
applicant must show senior rater and management level support for this
change.  DPPPE recommends the applicant’s PRFs remain unchanged.

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

The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application
and indicated that the application is not timely filed and provided  a
5-page advisory opinion regarding the timeliness issue  and  addressed
each of the applicant’s requests separately (see Exhibit I).

The Chief, USAF Classification Branch, AFPC/DPPAC, also reviewed  this
application and addressed applicant’s request for award of a secondary
AFSC  for  the  Security  Police  career  field.   DPPAC  stated  that
applicant’s duty AFSC (DAFSC) through the period (1989  to  1993)  was
5525G or 32E3G (5525G converted to 32E3G effective  31 Oct  93).   The
AFSC title was Civil  Engineering  and  suffix  G  title  was  General
Engineering.   After  reviewing  applicant’s  record  and   supporting
documents, including performance reports and a citation for the  award
of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC),
for the period 25 Dec 87 through 30 Apr 95, DPPAC found  no  reference
or mention of the applicant being the Installation Chief  of  Security
Police.  The duty title(s) reflected on his performance reports and on
the citation are “Facilities Plans Officer” or “Chief Civil Engineer.”
 There is reference to work/involvement with development,  plans,  and
contracts involving physical security; physical security  restructure;
and  revising  a  statement  of  work  for  range  security  and   law
enforcement.     All    available    information    indicates    these
tasks/functions were part of the assigned duties and  responsibilities
of the Civil Engineering position to which the applicant was assigned.
 There is no reference to his personal involvement with or performance
of designated Security Police  duties/functions.   From  1989  through
1993, mandatory qualifications for award of the Security  Police  AFSC
(8124) included numerous mandatory knowledge, experience, and training
criteria.  The most notable that apply to this application are:

      a.    Completion of the basic Security  Police  officer  course,
and, for active duty member, completion of Air Force  Level 4,  Ground
Combat Skills course; and,

      b.    A minimum of 24  months’  experience  in  Security  Police
assignments.

DPPAC recommends denial of the request for award of a  secondary  AFSC
for the Security Police career field.   There  is  no  information  or
documentation  in  this  request  to  substantiate   the   applicant’s
qualification or eligibility to be awarded the Security Police AFSC.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided  an  11-page
response, with attachments (see Exhibit L).

_________________________________________________________________




THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s  submission,  including  his
prior application, we are not persuaded that he should  be  given  the
requested relief.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do  not
find these assertions, in and by themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive
to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   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 again  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 8 July 1999, under the provisions  of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member
                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit E.  ROP, dated 10 Aug 95, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 30 Nov 98.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Dec 98.





     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 14 Jan 99.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 13 Mar 99.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Mar 99.
     Exhibit L.  Letter fr applicant, dated 28 May 99, w/atchs.




                                   ROBERT D. STUART
                                   Panel Chair