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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01181
            INDEX CODE 102.00 107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL: James J. Peterschmidt

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED: Yes

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he  requests  the  full
and complete correction of his military records as ordered in an AFBCMR
2 Nov 99 directive.

The AFBCMR order his selection to Senior Service School (SSS)  and  his
consideration for command and promotion.

He be given proper credit for command for service as a  unit  commander
(squadron level) from 1977-1978 and  he  be  given  the  Joint  Service
Officer Designator.

His records reflect  current  duty  history,  schools,  or  awards  and
decorations earned through all honorable service prior to 1999.

His regular appointment be finalized.

His back pay and allowances  based  on  his  retroactive  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel be fully adjudicated.

The Board direct the Air Force and all  responsible  AFPC  elements  to
“reconstitute”  his  full  record  in  accordance  with  the   original
directive language.

The Board direct a reconstituted record to reflect all career  service,
regardless of current policy restrictions, as if the service  had  been
performed within accepted Air Force standards for the entire career.

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Counsel for the applicant states that the mainstream  Air  Force,  with
current AFIs, policy, and the myriad of personnel directives  has  been
incapable  of  effectively  correcting  the  applicant’s  record  to  a
competitive state.

The 2 Nov 99 AFBCMR directive contained directions to “reconstitute”  a
record that would allow the applicant to “compete” for  service  within
the members peer group.  This in turn  would  create  and  promote  the
climate of a “fair and equitable” competitive  state  for  professional
promotion  opportunity.   The   applicant’s   record   has   not   been
reconstituted or completed and remains in a serious state of disarray.

The current service record built, validated,  and  maintained  for  the
applicant by AFPC reflects  service  that  is  incomplete,  inaccurate,
prejudicial, and manifestly contrary  to  the  clear  stipulations  set
forth in the AFBCMR 2 Nov 99 directive.

AFPC’s reconstitution of the applicant’s records  cannot  overcome  the
deficiencies and the only relief from continued damage to his career is
for the AFBCMR to act in the place of the active  Air  Force  personnel
system and order the applicant’s selection for  SSS,  consideration  of
command assignment, and consideration for promotion to colonel (O-6).

The  applicant’s   records   as   currently   reconstituted   show   no
consideration for promotion to colonel (O-6), selection for command, or
selection for SSS.

The applicant’s record as presently configured is read as “passed over”
for promotion to O-6, selection for  command,  and  selection  for  SSS
although he has not been officially considered even once.

AFPC refuses to grant the applicant full  command  status,  alleging  a
change in policy or suggesting  that  previous  command  experience  is
dated, though had the command credit been entered  when  applicant  was
last on active duty (prior to 1996) the credit for command  would  have
remained.

Applicant’s Counsel submitted two addendums to  this  application  that
provides additional evidence  of  further  injustice  suffered  by  the
applicant.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments and addendums, are at
Exhibits X, Y, and Z.

____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was retired under his established early retirement date of  1
Sep 94, because of having been twice nonselected for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel.  As a result  of  previous  AFBCMR  action
subsequent to his separation (Exhibit V), applicant’s promotion  record
was corrected, he was considered for  promotion  by  special  selection
board (SSB),  and  he  was  retroactively  selected  for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel.  Applicant then filed an addendum (Exhibit W)  with
the Board requesting reinstatement to active duty  with  back  pay  and
allowances, reconstruction of his  records  to  show  “competitive  and
productive continuous service,” consideration for promotion to  colonel
at the date of first eligibility, and payment of out-of-pocket expenses
and attorney fees.  In response to that  addendum,  the  Board  ordered
that applicant’s record be corrected to show that he was not retired on
1 Sep 94 in the grade of major, but was continued on  active  duty  and
was ordered permanent change of station to his home of  record  pending
further orders; that an AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation  Sheet,  be
prepared and inserted in his record to show that no performance reports
were available for the period when he was not serving on  active  duty;
and that any nonselections for promotion to the grade of colonel in the
primary zone prior to receiving a minimum of  two  officer  performance
reports (OPRs) in the grade of lieutenant colonel be  set  aside.   The
other requests were denied.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAP evaluated this application  in  regards  to  the  applicant’s
request  for  designation  as  a  Joint  Specialty  Officer  (JSO)  and
retroactive selection to SSS.  They recommend  that  applicant  not  be
designated a JSO, but be considered for SSS by special selection  board
if his senior rater supports nominating him as a non-candidate.

The applicant has  not  completed  the  requirements  necessary  to  be
designated a JSO.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit AA.

AFPC/DPPPO evaluated this application in  regards  to  the  applicant’s
request for consideration for promotion  to  colonel  (O-6),  award  of
proper credit for duty history, schools, and awards and decorations for
O-6 management  Level  Review  (MLR)  and  the  CY00A  central  colonel
selection board, and  completion  of  his  regular  appointment.   They
recommend denial of the applicant’s requests.

While it is unfortunate that the applicant  had  a  six-year  break  in
service, his situation is not unique.  The AFBCMR has fairly considered
the applicant’s  case  and  has  provided  fair  relief--he  was  given
opportunity to build a competitive record as a lieutenant  colonel  and
has had a promotion nonselection to colonel “set aside.”   Neither  the
AFBCMR nor the Air Force Personnel Center can  fabricate  a  lieutenant
colonel’s selection record that mirrors those of the  majority  of  the
applicant’s peers.  Aside from his break in service, most did not serve
four years in non-EAD status or ten years in another branch of service.
 The bottom line is the applicant’s selection  record  can  never  look
like his peers’.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit AB.

DFAS-POCC/DE evaluated this application in regards to  the  applicant’s
requests to be reimbursed for civilian  annual  and  sick  leave  taken
before  being  reinstated  to  active  duty  on      1   Sep   94   and
reimbursement of attorney’s fees.

They recommend  denial  of  the  applicant’s  requests.   There  is  no
authority to treat civilian leave as a substitute for  military  leave.
In the applicant’s case, he was granted a waiver  of  the  57  days  of
leave deducted at reinstatement and repaid the amount in June 2000.

In regards to attorney’s fees, the law established under      10 U.S.C.
1552 does not provide for the assessment of attorney  fees.   They  are
not aware of any statute or  law  that  provides  for  the  payment  of
attorney fees as a result of the correction of  military  records.   In
the absence of statutory authority, payment should not be allowed.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit AC.

AFPC/JA evaluated this application in regards to whether the Air  Force
has violated the Board’s earlier order and whether  the  applicant  has
been treated unfairly or improperly in response to his previous  record
corrections.  They recommend denial of the applicant’s requests.

In their view, the applicant  has  confused  his  written  request  for
relief with the order and relief actually granted by the Board  in  its
order.  Applicant now claims that the  AFBCMR  decision  of  2  Nov  99
directed the Air Force to “reconstitute a record that was competitive.”
 Through his counsel,  applicant  argues  that  that  standard  entails
creating a record “as if the service had been performed within accepted
Air Force standards for the entire career.”  However, the Board in  its
decision did not levy such a requirement.  To  insure  the  competitive
fairness that applicant requested, the Board ordered that an Air  Force
Form 77 be inserted into the record to explain that performance reports
were not available for the period when he was  not  serving  on  active
duty (through no fault of his).  In its record  of  proceedings  (p.3),
the Board noted  applicant’s  request  for  a  “reconstituted”  record;
however, the Board rejected that request, noting that  “in  cases  such
as this, performance reports cannot be manufactured to cover a break in
service.”  The Board obviously believed that inclusion of the  Form  77
and the opportunity to build an actual record as a  lieutenant  colonel
over two years would afford  applicant  the  requisite  opportunity  to
build a competitive record and compete fairly.  Suffice it to  say,  in
addition, the  Board  never  specifically  ordered  or  even  addressed
potential consideration for SSS and/or command assignment.   In  short,
the AFBCMR’s directive was unequivocal and concise and did  not  embody
those actions now complained about by applicant.

Applicant is asking the AFBCMR to create a  record  for  service  never
performed (which clearly goes  beyond  even  the  BCMR’s  authority  to
correct  a  record)  because  his  record  as  presently  corrected  is
perceived to put him at a disadvantage  vis-à-vis  his  contemporaries.
In arguing that the delays in the case and the nature  of  the  Board’s
previously  ordered  corrections  still  put  him  at  a  disadvantage,
applicant seems to have forgotten that his records  were  corrected  to
afford his promotion to lieutenant  colonel  and  he  was  returned  to
active duty at his request.

The correction process can only go so far to make an individual  whole.
The applicant seems to be  demanding  perfection  that  is  simply  not
possible.  The corrections to his record have necessarily  created  the
situation of which he now complains.  Retroactive dating  to  establish
new dates of rank and pay dates to rectify errors or injustices  is  an
integral part of the correction process.  Yet the  down  side  of  that
process is the officer’s immediate or  almost  immediate  qualification
for consideration for promotion to the next  grade.   When  it  becomes
necessary  to  effect  corrections  involving  the   establishment   of
retroactive dates  of  rank,  once  made,  those  corrections  must  be
accepted as final and conclusive evidence for all  purposes.   Just  as
importantly, the process must end.  Not every potential contingency  or
byproduct of correction can be remedied.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit AD.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel for the applicant responds to the Air  Force  advisories  in  a
letter with six attachments which  includes  two  letters  of  support,
Evidence and Exhibits, Facts, Findings, & Relief Requests,  a  complete
and expanded rebuttal and an Executive Summary.  Counsel requests  that
the Board take special notice of the letters provided by  the  PACAF/CV
and the  applicant’s  senior  rater.   He  states  that  these  letters
encapsulate the entire case and cause action, cries out for justice  to
be served, and lays the ultimate resolution of the documented injustice
into the hands of the AFBCMR.

Counsel states  that  after  consulting  with  the  applicant  and  his
military advisor, he concludes that AFPC did not read or appreciate the
scope of applicant’s request for AFBCMR intervention and resolution  of
those issues raised before them.  The issues that AFPC  did  touch  on,
except for Joint Duty credit failed to produce “proof” contrary to  the
irrefutable evidence in support of applicant’s new  appeal.   As  such,
AFPC has failed to correctly comprehend, to  the  fullest  extent,  the
purpose and intent of this appeal.  That is, the fundamental  right  of
every Air Force officer to have a complete and accurate record free  of
“material errors,” to fairly compete with his or her assigned year peer
group for career assignments (i.e., command PME in residence),  and  to
be fairly considered for promotion.

Counsel provides a summary that he indicates focuses on those  elements
that they believe are clearly within the powers of the  AFBCMR  process
to grant relief as fair and equitable.  Counsel provides  a  disclaimer
that indicates that applicant did not seek  or  request  the  Board  to
consider as an appropriate measure for whole and  complete  relief  the
following:

        a.  Direct or retroactive promotion to  colonel  and  reconvene
the MLR.

        b.  Creation of a “Dummy Record” covering  the  6-year  service
gap with awards, performance reports, schools and assignments.

        c.  Direct the Board to award Attorney Fees for previous errors
and injustice.

Counsel states that the unusual  disclaimer  is  offered  because  they
believe the AFPC advisory respondents did not fully read or  comprehend
what applicant was requesting to have corrected.  Contrary to the  AFPC
advisories  indicating  requests  for  direct  promotion  and   special
treatment, Counsel indicates that he requested that the Board  step  in
and take charge of applicant’s career, to correct all “material errors”
in his Officer Selection Brief, make right  “errors  of  injustice”  by
restoring accurate and complete past duty history, granting full credit
for command and executive officer duties, JSO credit and, finally, give
the applicant the same opportunity  to  compete  for  the  same  career
assignments and promotion opportunities that his peer group has had.

In the Executive Summary,  Counsel  provides  direct  response  to  the
following  10  issues  or  statements  addressed  in  the   Air   Force
evaluations:

         1.  Advisory  contends:  While  it  is  unfortunate  that  the
applicant has a six-year break in service, his situation is not unique.
 Counsel responds that a  six-year  gap  in  service  is  very  unique,
especially in that it was caused by a simple material error  when  AFPC
omitted ten years of performance reports from  promotion  consideration
resulting in an illegal administrative discharge and forced retirement.
  Counsel  further  contends  that  AFPC/JA  has  not   addressed   the
requirement for AFPC to ensure  applicant’s  record  is  reconstituted,
including the gap in-service, to its former state prior to the admitted
injustice, and it accurately reflects the  “full  service”  information
omitted from the original promotion process, as well as all  subsequent
service and assignment omissions since the applicant’s return to active
service.

        2.  Advisory contends: The AFBCMR  has  fairly  considered  the
applicant’s case (1994) and has  provided  fair  relief--he  was  given
opportunity to build a competitive  record  as  a  lieutenant  colonel.
Counsel states that he unequivocally denies that the applicant has been
given every opportunity to build a competitive record.  In fact,  quite
the opposite.  Applicant has repeatedly been denied the opportunity  to
correct his record, up to and including the rote dismissal of  previous
documented proof of service, education, awards and assignment.

        3.  Applicant’s selection record can never look like his peers.
 Counsel indicates that he wholeheartedly agrees with this  element  of
the  AFPC  summary.   As  long  as  the  applicant’s   record   remains
incomplete, including numerous unattended “material errors,” the record
will not look the same as those of his peers and he will be denied  the
opportunity to compete for career assignments.  Counsel  and  applicant
contend, however, that the Board has a unique  opportunity  to  correct
these errors and direct that the record be corrected  and  is  free  of
“material errors,”

        4.  AFPC’s response to Counsel’s claim that there is  confusion
regarding applicant’s promotion status--once deferred and  the  adverse
impact on eligibility criteria in meeting  Commander  selection  boards
and MLRs: “Unless the report is expedited for this board, the applicant
will not meet the AFBCMR directive’s requirement of having two OPRs  on
file prior to  his  “primary  zone”  consideration.   It’s  likely  the
applicant will not meet his primary board until  late  2002.”   Counsel
responds that AFPC did not answer their complaint, as  the  record  was
ordered deferred after the CY00 colonel’s board and applicant’s  record
was tagged in excess of 5 months as a “deferred” officer for  promotion
and in at least one case, the alleged deferment  was  identified  as  a
“show stopper” when applicant competed and was non-selected for Support
Group Deputy Commander.

        5.  The Advisory states:  We  recommend  the  AFBCMR  deny  the
applicant’s request for direct promotion, to reconvene the MLR is moot,
and since he has already accepted a Regular Air Force  appointment  and
there are no errors in his OSB  for  the  PO600A  promotion  board,  no
additional action is required.  Fair relief was provided.  This  relief
cannot be continuous at  the  discretion  of  the  applicant.   Counsel
responds that neither he nor the applicant has ever asked the Board  to
consider direct promotion.

        6.  The advisory recommends applicant not be designated  a  JSO
since he has not met Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) I and
II requirements.  AFPC has  offered  to  grant  consideration  for  SSS
selection via a SSB, if senior rater supports nominating the officer as
a non-candidate.  Based on the applicant’s  qualifications  and  unique
circumstances, Counsel requests that the Board direct the Air Force  to
request  a  DOD  waiver  for  JSO   consideration.    In   regards   to
consideration for SSS by SSB, Counsel indicates the SSS SSB  route  has
been tried and determined on 1  Nov  00  that  the  “reconstruction  of
command level non-candidate PME selection process for FY 94, 95, and 96
to be undoable.”

        7.  The advisory contends: Applicant has taken liberty with the
words and intent of the SECAF directive and “confused  written  request
for relief with the order and relief actually granted by the Board.  By
inference the JA suggests that under the strict letter of  the  Board’s
order, the Air Force has no responsibility  to  reconstitute  a  record
that was competitive.  This, of course, would be  a  blatantly  unsound
stance by the Air Force.  Counsel indicates that he and  the  applicant
contend that this is further evidence of the lack of continuity  and/or
detail provided in the construct or executive review of AFPC’s argument
and further substantiates their claim  of  prejudiced  willful  counter
posture on the part of AFPC reviewing officials.

        8.  AFPC  contends  in  its  advisory  that  the  AFBCMR  never
specifically ordered or even addressed potential considerations for SSS
and/or command  assignment.   In  short,  the  AFBCMR’s  directive  was
unequivocal and concise and did not embody those actions  now  appealed
by the applicant.  Counsel responds that to  assume,  as  AFPC/JA,  has
that these considerations were inherently part of the Board’s decision,
and/or were clear, is misleading, nonsensical, and distorts the Board’s
actual documented language to grant  full  and  fair  relief.   Implied
tasks are inherent in any legal order, issued by legal authority.   The
implementations of the orders are seldom spelled out exactly in  “black
and white,” with specific language  toward  every  possible  course  of
action.

        9.  The applicant’s  point  of  standards  entails  creating  a
record as if the service had been performed within accepted  Air  Force
standards for the entire career is not substantiated and that the board
did not levy such a requirement.  Counsel replies  that  every  officer
subject to the AFI is guaranteed a service  record  constructed  within
accepted Air Force standards as a record that can be  fairly  evaluated
and assessed for assignment and promotion.  This comment by AFPC  seems
to imply that simply because the “SECAF’s order” did  not  specifically
order reconstitution of the record that his client does not  deserve  a
record that adequately reflects the elements of his career and  service
which were originally omitted from his jacket as result of  the  flawed
promotion in 1993 and 1994, or his current service since reinstated  on
active duty.

        10.  AFPC/JA states that the correction process can only go  so
far to  make  an  individual  whole…applicant  seems  to  be  demanding
perfection; that is simply not possible…not every potential contingency
or by-product of correction can be remedied…these cases could  drag  on
forever addressing the new anomalies invariably  created  by  tampering
with history.  To this  Counsel  states  that  the  applicant  is  only
seeking correction of those “material errors” and “errors of injustice”
that are impacting his ability to fairly compete for command,  SSS  in-
residence, JSO status, and promotion.   Counsel  indicates  that  while
they do not want to tamper with history,  they  do,  however,  want  to
correct  the  record  to  accurately   “reflect   history,”   a   right
fundamentally guaranteed to  every  service  member.   For  AFPC/JA  to
espouse  that  AFPC  was  never  directed  by  the  Board’s  order   to
reconstitute a record that was competitive and  allow  his  client  the
opportunity to fairly and equitably compete for career  assignments  is
contrary to that guarantee.

Counsel lists three issues that they contend AFPC  did  not  choose  to
comment on or rebut:

        1.  Absences of reconstituted record for command and  executive
officer credit, academic credit, incorrect duty title,  and  incomplete
duty history.

        2.  Absences of a fully reconstituted  record  and  eligibility
criteria for 2000 and 2001 “command” level boards.

        3.  Absences of a fully reconstituted  record  and  missing  AF
Form 77 in CY00 Colonel’s MLR and central selection board and  soon  to
be repeated in the upcoming CY01 MLR and central selection board.

In a letter, with attachments, dated 18 Dec  01,  Counsel  provided  an
addendum to his original rebuttal comments that includes what he states
is  newly  discovered  evidence  of  “material  errors  and  error   of
injustice” affecting his client’s case.

Counsel states that on 3 Dec 01, the applicant received a call from  an
officer in his local mission support squadron  offering  assistance  to
help him correct his  record.   Counsel  states  that  to  he  and  the
applicant, this offer of help is an admission that errors do  exist  in
the applicant’s record.  Counsel also offers evidence of efforts by the
applicant to try  and  get  his  record  corrected  through  Air  Force
channels.  He has provided a copy of a letter written to  AFPC/DPAP  in
response their 18 Jun 01 advisory opinion.

Finally, Counsel states that they offer this further  evidence  as  why
the Board must step in and take charge of the  applicant’s  record  and
order the corrections required.

Counsel’s complete initial response and addendum, with attachments,  is
at Exhibits AF and AG.

_______________________________________________________________

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.   We  reviewed  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of this case  and
in reaching our conclusion that, with the exception of  the  additional
corrections recommended herein, the applicant  has  been  provided  the
maximum relief warranted based on the evidence presented and of record.
 Applicant and his counsel stress as the basis for their requests  that
AFPC has failed to implement the relief stated and implied in  the    2
November 1999 AFBCMR directive.  We  disagree.  Applicant  and  counsel
seem to be seeking relief that will totally eradicate the existence and
impact of the applicant’s break  in  service.   However,  as  noted  by
AFPC/JA, the  correction  process  can  only  go  so  far  to  make  an
individual whole.  The  corrections  to  his  record  have  necessarily
created the situation of which he now complains.  Retroactive dating to
establish new dates  of  rank  and  pay  dates  to  rectify  errors  or
injustices is an integral part of the  correction  process.   Yet,  the
down side of that process is that the officer qualifies  for  promotion
consideration without having had the opportunity to build the record of
performance that has been an ongoing process  for  his  contemporaries.
Nevertheless, when it becomes necessary to effect corrections involving
the establishment of  retroactive  dates  of  rank,  once  made,  those
corrections must be accepted as final and conclusive for all  purposes.
Just as  importantly,  the  process  must  end.   Not  every  potential
contingency or byproduct of the correction process can be remedied.

4  Many of the items requested by applicant and counsel  seek  to  have
the Board establish special  rules  or  disregard  existing  rules  and
regulations to provide the applicant with the  relief  he  is  seeking,
e.g., JSO designation, inclusion of all his prior service  in  his  Air
Force record, selection for SSS, etc.  We do not support this approach.
 Finally, applicant  and  counsel  refer  to  the  letters  of  support
provided by the applicant’s reviewer and senior rater as evidence  that
the applicant cannot compete for command, SSS, or  promotion  with  his
contemporaries because of the gap in service.  Again, as  noted  above,
the relief provided in the 2  Nov  99  AFBCMR  directive  provides  the
applicant the opportunity to build a record of performance before being
considered for colonel in the primary zone.  He may never fully recover
from the effects of a six-year gap in  service.   On  the  other  hand,
there is no guarantee that he would have attained the grade of  colonel
had he not suffered the  errors  and/or  injustices  that  led  to  his
separation from service.  Hundreds  of  fully  qualified  officers  who
compete for promotion on a best-qualified basis do not attain the grade
of  colonel  due  to  the  limited  number  of   promotion   vacancies.
Accordingly, we believe that  any  future  promotions  must  be  earned
through the well established process  that  now  exists  and  that  the
applicant has been provided the best opportunity  that  we  can  afford
him, based on the circumstances, to compete and that no further  relief
is warranted.

5.  Notwithstanding our determination that  the  Board  has  previously
provided the applicant the maximum relief  warranted,  we  support  the
recommendation by AFPC/DPAP that the applicant be  considered  for  SSS
selection by special selection board should his  senior  rater  support
nominating him as a non-candidate.  The applicant now has two  OPRs  in
his record as a lieutenant colonel and in keeping with  the  2  Nov  99
directive, if he is nonselected for promotion to colonel in the primary
zone by the CY01 Colonel Selection Board it  will  count  against  him.
After a review of his two OPRs, however, we note that one was generated
based on a change in reporting official (CRO) and  one  was  an  annual
report.  Since it was the intent of the Board to provide the  applicant
an opportunity to build a record of performance as a lieutenant colonel
prior  to  his  in-the-zone  consideration,  we  believe  that  a  more
appropriate relief should have read “any nonselections for promotion to
the grade of colonel in the primary zone prior to receiving  a  minimum
of two annual Officer Performance Reports in the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel be set aside.”  Therefore  we  recommend  that  the  record  be
corrected as indicated below.

6.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

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

        a.  He be considered for Senior  Service  School  selection  by
special selection board provided he is nominated by his senior rate  as
a non-candidate.

        b.  Any nonselections for promotion to the grade of colonel  in
the primary zone prior to receiving a minimum  of  two  annual  Officer
Performance Reports in the grade of lieutenant colonel be set aside.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 January 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Member
      Mr. Gregory Petkoff, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit V.  Record of Proceedings, dated 15 Aug 96.
     Exhibit W.  Record of Proceedings, dated 2 Nov 99.
     Exhibit X.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit Y.  DD Form 149 Addendum, dated 2 Jun 01,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit Z.  DD Form 149 Second Addendum, dated 25 Sep 01,
                 W/atchs.
     Exhibit AA. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAP, dated 18 Jun 01.
     Exhibit AB. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 Aug 01,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit AC. Memorandum, DFAS-POCC/DE, undated.
     Exhibit AD. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 3 Oct 01.
     Exhibit AE. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Oct 01.
     Exhibit AF. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 23 Nov 01,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit AG. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 18 Dec 01,
                 w/atchs.




                                   Barbara A. Westgate
                                   Chair



AFBCMR 01-01181


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 XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show
that:

              a.  He be considered for Senior Service School  selection
by special selection board provided he is nominated by his senior  rate
as a non-candidate.

              b.  Any nonselections  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel in the primary zone prior to receiving a minimum of two  annual
Officer Performance Reports in the grade of lieutenant colonel be,  and
hereby are, set aside.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency