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

IN THE MATTER OF:                            DOCKET NUMBER: 93-05363
                                        INDEX CODE: 131.10

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His OER, closing 2 Jun 86, be corrected by adding the indorsement of Lt
Gen K----, former Numbered Air Force commander.

2.  His OER, closing 28 May 87, be corrected by adding the indorsement of
Gen R---, former Major Air Command (MAJCOM) commander.

3.  He be promoted to the grade of colonel by the Board.

4.  If not directly promoted by the Board, that he be considered by a
Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel by the
CY87 Colonel Board, and all subsequent promotion boards.

5.  If promoted, he be reinstated on active duty as though he did not
retire.

6.  If not promoted, all nonselections be set aside and that he be
considered in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) in a future cycle to compete for a
"Definitely Promote" PRF rating and for promotion, with the corrected OERs.


RESUME OF CASE:

Applicant's first request was considered and denied as untimely by the
Board on 9 Sep 94.  An accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding this application and the Board's earlier consideration of the
appeal are at Exhibit B.

On 28 Mar 96, the applicant submitted additional information and requested
reconsideration of his application.  The Board considered his request on 8
Jul 96, waived his failure to timely file, and denied his request based on
the merits.  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 C.

On 7 Feb 97, applicant again submitted additional evidence and requested
reconsideration of his application.  The additional evidence included
statements from the additional raters and final indorsers of the contested
OERs.

On 27 Jun 97, the Board considered and denied his requests.  A summary of
the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for it’s decision is
set forth in the Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Significant new evidence provided by the two former Numbered Air Force
Commanders provides strong support for his request to add the indorsement
of General K---- to the June 1986 OER and the indorsement of General R----
to the May 1987 OER.  Statements from the former Numbered Air Force
commanders both indicate that the determinations to close out the reports
at the levels in which they were closed were made by individuals that
weren't in authority to make those decisions.  He further asserts that the
statements of support have addressed all of the concerns cited by the Board
for disapproving his appeal on 27 Jun 97.  Based on all the evidence
submitted, he believes that he has provided a full explanation of the
Board's concerns.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided letters from Generals H----
 and K---- and a copy of the Board’s decision to correct his 24 Jun 72
Education/Training Report.  A complete copy of his submission is at Exhibit
A.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In earlier findings in this case, previous panel members determined
that the evidence provided was insufficient to show that the OERs closing 2
Jun 86 and 28 May 87 were erroneous or unjust.  We have reviewed all-
previous evidence and new statements submitted by applicant and do not find
it sufficient to support a revision of earlier findings in this case.

2.  We are not swayed that the contested reports were inaccurate at the
time they were rendered.  We found the most recent statements submitted in
support of the appeal, indicating that the decision to close out the
reports at the level in which they were closed were made by command section
staff members who were not in position to make those decisions,
insufficiently persuasive to warrant a finding to the contrary.  Rather, it
remains our view that the indorsers had the discretionary authority to
close out the reports at their level and that, notwithstanding the after
the fact assertions of the applicant’s supporters, at the time they were
made, their decisions were not improper.  Accordingly, the earlier findings
by the Board with respect to this matter are affirmed and the application
is again not favorably considered.


THE BOARD DETERMINED 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 1 Aug 00 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  Letter from applicant, dated 11 Jan 00, w/Atchs.
Exhibit B.  Record of Proceedings.
Exhibit C.  Addendum.
Exhibit D.  2nd Addendum.



                                        RITA S. LOONEY
                                        Panel Chair



                                       3

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF military RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM: SAF/MI

SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case on Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) XXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed all of the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the AFBCMR panel’s decision to deny the applicant’s requests
in its entirety.

      In preparing the applicant’s 2 Jun 86 Officer Effectiveness Report
(OER), his supervisor forwarded the report with the recommendation that it
be indorsed by either the Ninth Air Force (9AF) commander or the Tactical
Air Command (TAC) vice commander. His recommendation was based on what he
felt was the superior performance and achievements of the applicant, and
compliance with policy that was in effect at the time.  Having received a 2-
star indorsement on his previous report, his supervisor strongly believed
it was appropriate that the applicant's report be forwarded for 3-star
indorsement.  Upon receipt of his report at 9AF, command section personnel
forwarded the report for TAC/CC or TAC/CV indorsement.  Instead, the report
was indorsed by TAC/CS, which was clearly not the intent in mind when
forwarding the report given the fact that 2-star indorsement could have
been obtained at 9AF.  In preparing his 28 May 87 report, his supervisor
again recognizing the sustained superior performance of the applicant,
forwarded his report with the recommendation for 9AF/CC or TAC/CC
indorsement.  It was, however, closed at the 9AF/CV level.  A decision
which again appears to have been made by individuals without the
discretionary authority to do so.

The applicant requested, among other things, that the indorsements on the
OERs closing in 1986 and 1987 be replaced with the indorsements provided by
the 9AF/CC and TAC/CC, respectively.  In support of his appeal, he has
provided statements from the rating chain members and the former commanders
of 9AF and TAC.  The Board denied his request finding that the indorsers
had the discretionary authority to close out the reports at their level and
that their decisions were not improper.

The former TAC and 9AF commanders have each stated that it was their
policies at the time that reports on officers showing the highest
leadership potential be closed out at either TAC/CC,
TAC/CV , or 9AF/CC level.  The former commanders have reviewed the
applicant’s records and stated, in retrospect, that his records clearly
identified him as being among the top percentage of his peers in
achievements and leadership potential and that their indorsement was
warranted.

      I am inclined to believe that if the reports had been properly
referred to 9AF/CC for a decision, he would have indorsed the 1986 report
and forwarded the 1987 report to TAC/CC for indorsement.  Statements
provided by the former TAC/CC indicate that had he been provided the
opportunity to review applicant’s records, he would have indorsed the
report.

      It is apparent that the command staff members of both the former 9AF
and TAC commanders processed the reports in a manner in which they felt
were proper and in accordance with policies in place at the time.  However,
after reviewing the applicant’s records, the former commanders strongly
feel that his records clearly demonstrate that his performance and
leadership potential placed him in the top few percentile with his peers
and should have had their indorsement.  Both commanders indicate that they
believe that the reports as written did not provide selection board members
with an accurate assessment of his potential.

      Given the unequivocal support from all of the senior officers involved
in this case, I believe that the evidence does not support the AFBCMR’ s
recommendation.  The applicant has provided credible evidence from 3-star
and 4-star general officers in support of his request and I find no
plausible reason to doubt their integrity in this matter.  Therefore, I
conclude that the weight of the evidence shows that had the former 9AF and
TAC commanders been provided the opportunity to review the applicant’s
records at the time, they would have indorsed the reports.
Accordingly, I direct that the applicant’s records be corrected as
requested.  Since the corrections to his records will permit him to compete
for promotion on a fair and equitable basis before a Special Selection
Board, I find no cogent reason to grant his request for a direct promotion
or removing his nonselections for promotion to the grade of colonel.


                                        RUBY B. DEMESME
                                       Assistant Secretary
                                       Manpower, Reserve Affairs,
                                       Installations and Environment)

Attachment:
Complete Case File



AFBCMR 93-05363

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XX, be corrected to show that:

      a.  The Officer Effectiveness Report, AF Form 707, rendered for the
period 3 June 1985 through 2 June 1986, be changed in the following manner:

      (1)  Delete the indorser’s comments in Section VIII in their entirety
and insert the following in their place:

           All the indicators in the 33d are heading in the right
           direction.  As a key player in the unit selected as our nominee
           for the Daedalian Maintenance Trophy Award, XX is largely
           responsible for those statistics.  That is no accident.  He is a
           mover--one who makes things happen. Promote him to Colonel.

      (2)  Delete the signature element in Section VIII in its entirety and
insert the signature element and signature of Lieutenant General XX,
Commander, Headquarters Ninth Air Force, in its place.

      b.  The Officer Effectiveness Report, AF Form 707, rendered for the
period 3 June 1986 through 28 May 1987, be changed in the following manner:

           (1)  Delete the indorser's comments in Section VIII in
their entirety and insert the following in their place:

                 XX has continued to demonstrate superior potential.  He
                 resolved long-standing problems in the maintenance complex.
                  His work as Core DCM at Davis-Monthan AFB during Gallant
                 Eagle 86 was absolutely outstanding.  He provided strong
                 leadership to over 500 personnel from six separate
                 organizations, including a MAC unit and one from the U.S.
                 Marine Corps.  He combined them into a highly effective
                 team, and flew 1,100 incident-free hours in less than two
                 weeks.  This was the best Gallant Eagle ever.  XX is easily
                 among the top few percent in potential, and a future senior
                 leader. Promote and challenge with command.

           (2)  Delete the signature element in Section VIII in its
entirety and insert the signature element and signature of General XX,
Commander, Headquarters Tactical Air Command, in its place.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY 1987 Central Colonel
Selection Board, which convened on 10 August 1987, and for any subsequent
boards for which the Officer Effectiveness Reports closing 2 June 1986 and
28 May 1987, were a matter of record, and, if he is selected for promotion
to the grade of colonel, the results of the particular Special Selection
Board be made available to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and
appropriate actions may be taken consistent with his selection for
retroactive promotion.



                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency