THIRD ADDENDUM TO


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  92-01286
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00


      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None


      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him for the  Calendar
Year 1991A (CY91A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be revised.

He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by special selection
board (SSB) for the CY91A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board with
the revised PRF.

______________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 11 March 1993, the Board considered and denied the following  requests
from the applicant (Exhibit XX):

            a.  He  be  given  supplemental  promotion  consideration  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY91A Lieutenant Colonel  (Lt  Col)
Promotion Board.

            b.  His nonselections for promotion to Lt Col be set aside.

            c.  His record be corrected to reflect that he was awarded  a
Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation for the CY91A (or  the  CY91B)  Lt
Col Board.

            d.  His record be corrected to reflect that he  was  selected
for promotion to Lt Col and awarded an appropriate date  of  rank  (DOR),
backpay, and other entitlements associated with the promotion.

            e.  The AFBCMR amend his June 1980  and  June  1981  OERs  by
upgrading all ratings to “well above standard.”

            f.  His Training Report (TR),  closing  out  29  Aug  84,  be
amended by attaching the 27 Feb 92 letter that shows his noncompletion of
the degree was due to circumstances beyond his control.

            g.  His OER, closing 29 Aug 86, be amended with attachment of
his indorser’s comments to the report.

In a letter dated 12 Jun 93, the  applicant  contended  that  the  AFBCMR
elected not to  consider  several  elements  of  his  rebuttal  regarding
procedures used in  the  Officer  Evaluation  System  (OES)  and  officer
promotion system in violation of the “Antioch Stipulation.”  He requested
that the Board reconsider its denial of his application and consider  all
the issues he had surfaced in his initial application and rebuttal.  On 9
July 1993, the  Board  reconsidered  and  again  denied  the  applicant’s
requests  (Exhibit YY).   In  a  letter  dated  11  September  1993,  the
applicant complained that he had  not  been  given  due  process  in  the
Board’s consideration of his  case.   Based  on  his  letter,  the  Board
advised the applicant in a letter dated 5 Oct 93,  that  his  application
was being held in abeyance for 30 days to give  him  the  opportunity  to
clearly  and  succinctly  set  forth  his  allegations   concerning   the
evaluation/promotion system.  The applicant responded in a  letter  dated
15 Nov 95, with his reasons why he believed the relief he  sought  should
be  granted.   After  obtaining  additional  evaluations  based  on   the
applicant’s contentions,  the  Board  again  considered  and  denied  the
applicant’s requests on 2 April 1995 (Exhibit ZZ).

In a letter dated  16  Oct  02  (Exhibit  AAA),  the  applicant  requests
reconsideration of his application based on newly acquired evidence.  The
new evidence according to the applicant is a statement  from  his  senior
rater indicating his error, definitely recommending  him  for  promotion,
and strongly supporting his consideration  for  promotion  by  SSB.   The
applicant has also submitted three additional  letters  for  the  Board’s
consideration stressing his ability to help meet the Air Force’s critical
need for scientists and engineers (Exhibit BBB).

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record,
which includes the recently submitted documentation, we are not persuaded
that the relief requested should be granted.  The  applicant  presents  a
statement from  his  former  senior  rater  as  new  evidence  warranting
reconsideration of his case.  Specifically, the  applicant  asserts  that
the senior rater’s statement provides sufficient grounds for amending the
PRF prepared on him for the CY91A Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection
Board and his  consideration  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by
special selection board.  He also references Air  Force  Instruction  36-
2401, not in existence at the time of his initial appeal, as new evidence
because it provides clear standards  by  which  to  judge  the  merit  of
performance report appeals.  The Board agrees that the statement from the
applicant’s former senior rater  technically  constitutes  new  evidence.
However, we do not find this statement, submitted  more  than  ten  years
after the fact, sufficiently compelling to warrant  granting  the  relief
requested.  The senior rater opines  that  the  omission  of  a  specific
recommendation for promotion “may have misled board  members.”   This  is
conjecture at best and does not prove error or injustice.  In  fact,  the
senior rater  fails  to  explain  why  he  failed  to  make  a  promotion
recommendation when he initially prepared the applicant’s  PRF  and  what
information is available to him now that he did not  have  at  the  time.
The Board believes that to amend the applicant’s PRF and grant  promotion
consideration by SSB simply based on a retrospective look that  concludes
the original PRF can now  be  made  better  would  be  unfair  to  others
considered by  the  CY91A  board  and  undermine  the  integrity  of  the
evaluation and promotion system.  Regarding the applicant’s request  that
we review the new guidance available in AFI 36-2401, we  do  not  believe
this is relevant to  the  applicant’s  case.   Over  time,  policies  are
generally revised, made  better  or  more  relevant  to  current  issues.
However, this does not mean that  actions  taken  under  previous  policy
constituted errors or injustices.  The Board believes  that  the  Board’s
previous  consideration  of  the  issues  related  to   the   applicant’s
performance reports was sufficient and finds no basis to  look  at  these
issues again.  Finally, the applicant opines that due to the Air  Force’s
need for qualified technical personnel  and  his  background  in  systems
engineering, it would be of great benefit to the Air Force  to  reinstate
him in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  Such a determination  is  beyond
the scope of the issues before the Board.  Our decision is made solely on
the basis of whether the applicant has been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Since our determination is  that  he  has  not,  we  find  no
compelling basis to grant the relief requested.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of 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 30 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit XX.  Record of Proceedings, dated 6 Apr 93,
                 w/atchs.
    Exhibit YY.  Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated
                 6 Aug 93, w/atchs.
    Exhibit ZZ.  Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                 dated 4 May 95, w/atchs.
    Exhibit AAA. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit BBB. Letters, Applicant, dated 2 Mar 03, 9 Mar 03,
                 and 21 Apr 03, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair