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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  81-01467

            COUNSEL:  DANIEL W. CHINA

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he was selected for promotion to
the Reserve grade of colonel by either the Fiscal Year 1978 (FY78)  or
the Fiscal Year 1979 (FY79) Colonel  Promotion  Board,  retroactively,
with all benefits and entitlements paid to him  retroactively;  and/or
at  an  absolute  minimum,  he  be  reconsidered  for  promotion,   in
accordance with properly authorized and  identifiable  procedures,  on
the basis of an accurate and comprehensive record.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

The applicant is a former active member of the Air Force Reserve,  who
applied for and was assigned to the Retired  Reserve  Section  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel, by orders  dated  16  Oct  78.   Computer
records indicate that he was credited with 27  years  and  2  days  of
service computed under 10 USC 1332.

In an application dated 6 Nov 80, the Board considered  an  appeal  in
which the applicant requested that two Officer  Effectiveness  Reports
(OERs) be removed from his records, he be promoted  to  the  grade  of
colonel, Air Force Reserve, and his retirement date be set aside.   In
May 82, his application was withdrawn, without prejudice, based on his
request.  On 5 Jul 85, he requested that the processing of his case be
resumed.  After reviewing the  evidence,  on  10  Jul  86,  the  Board
recommended that the contested reports be removed from the record  and
that the corrected records  be  considered  by  Special  Review  Board
(SRBs) for promotion to the grade of colonel  by  the  FY78  and  FY79
Reserve of the Air Force Colonel  Overall  Vacancy  Selection  Boards.
The recommendation of the Board was accepted by  the  Deputy  for  Air
Force Review Boards on 26 Aug 86 (see AFBCMR 81-01467, with Exhibits A
through E).

The SRBs were convened, as directed.  The SRBs did not  recommend  the
applicant for promotion by the FY78 and  FY79  selection  boards.   In
accordance with policy, the recommendations of the SRBs were forwarded
to the Board for a  final  determination  concerning  the  applicant’s
requests for promotion and reinstatement to active Reserve status.  On
1 May 87, the Board concurred with the  recommendations  of  the  SRBs
(see Addendum to AFBCMR 81-01467 with Exhibits A through B).

On 30 Mar 94,  the  Board  reconsidered  and  denied  the  applicant’s
appeal, requesting that his records be corrected to show that  he  was
selected for promotion to the grade of colonel, Air Force Reserve,  by
the FY78 Reserve of the Air  Force  Reserve  Colonel  Overall  Vacancy
Selection Board, which convened on 3 Oct 77; and,  by  amendment,  his
record of performance be recreated as it would have been  had  it  not
been for the illegal wing  policy  and  his  reconstructed  record  be
submitted to a promotion board for a determination as  to  whether  he
would have been promoted to the Reserve grade of colonel  (see  Second
Addendum to AFBCMR 81-01467, with Exhibits A through E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has discovered a film prepared  by  the  United  States  Air  Force
entitled “The Air Force Reserve Promotion System and You.”  This  film
was prepared by the Air Force and outlines the procedure which the Air
Force Reserve Promotion Boards are required to follow in the review of
the records of officers who are being considered for promotion.   This
film which governs the procedure by which the  Board  is  required  to
operate is highly relevant in this case because (1) the procedure  set
forth in this film is inconsistent  with  the  procedure  required  by
statute, (2) the procedure set forth in this film was not followed  by
the AFBCMR in the case of the applicant, and (3)  under  the  criteria
for promotion identified in this film, he should have been promoted.

He has discovered a 1 Sep  78  Memorandum  written  by  the  Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force, xxxx xxx xxxx, which sheds some light on a
possible reason, why, despite such an outstanding record, he  was  not
promoted.  The Memorandum is a directive by the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force to the President of the  FY79  Reserve  Colonel  Overall
Vacancy  Board  basically  encouraging  the  Board  to  promote  fewer
applicants.  In fact, the letter expressly discourages  the  promotion
of  senior  officers.   In  addition  to  the  obvious  civil   rights
implications of the directive,  the  letter  effectively  directs  the
Board to ignore the usual criteria for promotion and to seek to reduce
the number of promotions.  Given the fact that he was one of the  more
senior individuals seeking promotion, it is little wonder that despite
his  outstanding  record,  he  was  not   promoted.    These   special
instructions are similar to other instructions that have been given to
past and recent Air Force promotion boards to  control  the  selection
rates  of  women  and  other  minorities.   The  Air  Force  has  been
criticized  for  such  special  instructions  in  the  past   as   the
instructions are a behind the  scene  manipulation  of  the  promotion
process.  Moreover, 10 USC 616f expressly prohibits such action.

Applicant’s complete submission, to include the film pertaining to the
Air Force Reserve  Promotion  System,  and  the  Memorandum  from  the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Staff  Judge  Advocate,  ARPC/JA,
reviewed  the  applicant’s  most  recent  submission  and  recommended
denial.  According to the ARPC/JA, the matters brought forward by  the
applicant do not support  granting  reconsideration  of  his  original
application.  Further,  though  these  matters  are  germaine  to  his
application in the sense they elucidate aspects of the Reserve officer
promotion process, these same matters fail to  carry  the  applicant’s
burden of demonstrating that an error or injustice  occurred  when  he
was deferred for promotion to the grade of Reserve colonel.

A complete copy of the ARPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit G.

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management,  ARPC/DPJB,  reviewed
the applicant’s  submission  and  recommended  denial.   According  to
ARPC/DPJB, there was no evidence to prove that either the film or  the
memorandum in anyway impacted the outcome of the original FY78 or FY79
Colonel Promotion Boards.  Additionally,  there  was  no  evidence  to
prove that either the film or the memorandum in  anyway  impacted  the
outcome of the SRB  that  reconsidered  the  applicant  for  promotion
several years later.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPJB evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his initial response, counsel indicated that the applicant’s 25 Sep
98 submission summarizes the numerous errors and  injustices  suffered
by the applicant over the past 19 years.   To  date,  the  AFBCMR  has
failed  to  adequately  address  those  errors  and  injustices.   The
advisory opinions likewise did not address any  of  those  errors  and
injustices.  Rather, the  advisory  opinions  merely  focused  on  two
arguments raised by the applicant.  In counsel’s  view,  the  advisory
opinions response to the new evidence was factually and legally  void.
As such, the AFBCMR should not follow their recommendations.   Rather,
based on the substantial evidence which  has  been  presented  to  the
AFBCMR, the Board should recommend  that  the  applicant’s  record  be
amended to show that he was selected for promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by one  of  the  Boards  that  considered  him  and  that  the
applicant’s name be forwarded to  all  departments  for  approval  and
confirmation,  and  that  all  other  actions   and/or   relief   flow
accordingly.  In  the  alternative,  and  at  the  very  minimum,  the
applicant should be granted a hearing.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit J.

Counsel provided a subsequent  response,  with  additional  supporting
documentation, which is attached at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  We have carefully considered the applicant’s contentions of  error
and/or injustice and the documentation submitted in  support  thereof.
However, having carefully reviewed the position of the  Air  Force  in
this matter, we find its rationale more persuasive than the  arguments
proffered by the applicant.  We therefore agree with the  opinions  of
the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our  conclusion
that the applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  of  establishing
the existence of either an error or an injustice.  Therefore,  in  the
absence of more  clear-cut  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend approval of the applicant’s requests.

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 9 Jan 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Letter, counsel, dated 25 Sep 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, ARPC/JA, dated 29 Mar 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, ARPC/DPJB, dated 5 Apr 99.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Apr 99.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, counsel, dated 25 May 99.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, counsel, dated 27 May 99, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair