ADDENDUM TO

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  96-02238
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 111.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The recommendation for Intermediate Service  School  (ISS)  be
added to his Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  rendered  for  the
period 23 Aug 87 through 22 Aug 88.

2.    His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF)  be  upgraded  from  a
Promote recommendation to a Definitely Promote (DP)  recommendation,
or, in the alternative, the Board allow him sufficient time to  seek
correction of his PRF  through  Defense  Intelligence  Agency  (DIA)
channels or to direct its removal as it was based upon an  erroneous
record of performance.

3.    His nonselections for promotion to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel be set aside.

4.    Correct his records to  reflect  selection  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel as if selected by the  CY91B  Lieutenant  Colonel
Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant submits an 11-page letter and indicates, in part, that  he
is providing additional new and relevant information concerning  not
only the errors in his folder but also concerning procedural  errors
in the selection board itself.  He indicates that  the  Air  Force’s
promotion  recommendation  and  promotion  board  systems   operated
illegally.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________





RESUME OF CASE:

In an application, dated 30 Jul 96, the applicant requested that his
record, to include a  Letter  of  Mitigation  attached  to  the  OPR
closing 22 Aug 88 and  a  narrative  only  PRF,  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  by  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the CY91B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board.

On 18 Feb 97, the Board considered and  denied  applicant’s  request
(Exhibit F.).

In an undated letter,  applicant  requests  reconsideration  of  the
Board’s initial decision in his case (Exhibit G.)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  the
applicant’s requests and indicated that  he  provided  no  admission
from the Senior Rater (or his staff) that he was ordered  to  remove
the PME recommendation.  Further, between the years  1988-1990,  PME
push statements were not nearly as prevalent on  OPRs  as  they  are
today.  The lack of a statement  during  this  timeframe  would  not
necessarily be considered a negative indicator.  DPPPE fails to  see
how a missing PME recommendation statement from an OPR  three  years
earlier would justify a change in the narrative section  of  a  PRF.
The applicant shows no evidence that his Management Level  (ML)  did
not  use  “Top  Promote”  statements  on  PRFs  and  “Top   Promote”
statements were appropriate to use during the timeframe applicant is
referring to; therefore, if his ML chose not to use them,  they  did
so at their own discretion.  DPPPE recommends denial of  applicant’s
request.  He has not proven that an error or injustice has occurred.

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

The  Selection  Board   Secretariat,   AFPC/DPPB,   disagrees   with
applicant’s contention that the Air Force has neither  produced  nor
used standard  operating  procedures  for  selection  boards.   Upon
approval and publishing of Department of  Defense  Directive  (DODD)
1320.12, Defense Officer Promotion Program (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.  Only  after  the
new 36-89 was approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
published 17 Apr 92, did DPPB resume promotion boards.

Applicant’s allegation that a quality review worksheet is  illegally
used by the board is unfounded.  One of the  major  responsibilities
of the board president is to ensure consistent  scoring  across  the
panels and the computer-generated data (referred  to  as  a  quality
review sheet) is just one tool the board president can use to ensure
consistent scoring.  It is transitory in nature and destroyed  along
with  other  notes,  scores,  and  administrative   paperwork   from
selection boards upon approval of the board results  by  the  Deputy
Secretary of Defense.

The scoring scale used by the Air Force is from  6  to  10  in  half
point increments and board members are briefed to try to apply a 7.5
score to an “average” record and to try to use  the  entire  scoring
range throughout  the  evaluation  process.   Recognizing  that  the
scoring of records is a subjective process, it  should  come  as  no
surprise that individuals may have a slightly  different  definition
of what constitutes an “average” record.  Additionally, history  has
revealed that a given board member may be a more liberal scorer than
other board members and have a higher distribution of scores,  i.e.,
from 7 to 10.  On the other hand, a given board member may be a more
conservative scorer and have a distribution of scores from 6  to  9.
In either of these examples, a 7.5 score would  not  likely  be  the
“average” record.  As  long  as  each  board  member  applies  their
individual standard consistently  throughout  the  scoring  process,
each consideree will get a fair and equitable evaluation.  Only when
two or more board members score the same record with a  variance  of
two or more points, i.e., 7 and 9 or 7  and  9.5,  does  significant
disagreement occur and through discussion the variance is  resolved,
i.e., less than 2 points variance.

Applicant’s allegations that the boards were instructed  (illegally)
to give favored  treatment  to  females  and  minority  officers  is
without merit.  The guidance to the applicable boards directed board
members to give a fair and equitable evaluation  to  every  eligible
officer.  Further, the SSB process is conducted in  accordance  with
all governing directives.

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

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed applicant’s requests and indicated that both  Congress  and
DOD have made clear their intent that  errors  ultimately  affecting
promotion should be resolved through the use of SSBs.  DPPP does not
understand  the  purpose  behind  the  applicant’s  appeal  of   the
contested PRF since he is requesting  direct  promotion.   PRFs  are
accomplished for the sole purpose of  being  reviewed  by  promotion
boards.  To replace the applicant’s PRF  and  directly  promote  him
would be pointless.  Further, Air Force  officer  promotions  are  a
competitive process and to  directly  promote  the  applicant  would
circumvent the competitive nature of that process.  DPPP is  opposed
to the Board upgrading the promotion recommendation  on  applicant’s
CY91B PRF.  Even if he were to prove the promotion  system  illegal,
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.  The “evidence” the applicant  provided  to
document this appeal is virtually identical to that which  DPPP  has
repeatedly reviewed with other appeals and have found to be  nothing
more than unsubstantiated conjecture, wholly without  merit.   Other
than his own opinions, the applicant has provided no  substantiation
to  his  allegations.   DPPP  strongly  recommends  denial  of   the
applicant’s request for direct promotion.

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

The Senior  Attorney-Advisor,  AFPC/JA,  also  reviewed  applicant’s
requests  and  provided  a   six-page   response,   addressing   his
contentions.    JA   indicated   that   applicant’s   request    for
reconsideration should be denied since he has  failed  to  meet  the
requisite criteria for reconsideration and the application should be
denied on that basis.  Moreover, on the merits, applicant has failed
to present relevant evidence of any error  or  injustice  warranting
relief.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  provided  a  five-
page response, stating, in part, that he is embarrassed at  how  the
advisory opinions treated good faith  statements  from  four  senior
officers and a senior NCO who attempted to support his  appeal.   He
believes  that  a  careful  reading  of  his  attachments  and   the
deficiencies he  identified  in  the  advisory  support  some  Board
action.

Applicant’s complete response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  We have reviewed the entire
application,  including  the   supporting   documentation   submitted.
Applicant’s  numerous  contentions  and  allegations  concerning   the
statutory  compliance  of  central  selection  boards,  the  promotion
recommendation appeal process, flawed PRF procedures, and the legality
of the SSB process, in our  opinion,  have  no  merit.   The  detailed
comments  provided  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force
adequately address these issues.  In view of the foregoing,  we  agree
with the recommendations made by these Air Force offices 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 and therefore find no compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

DECISION OF THE BOARD:

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  23 October  and  7 December  2000,  under  the
provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
                  Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit F.  ROP, dated 31 Mar 97, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter fr applicant, undated, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 16 May 00.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 2 Jun 00.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Jun 00.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 30 Jun 00.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jul 00.
     Exhibit M.  Letter fr applicant, dated 8 Aug 00, w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair