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

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  92-02488
                                                        (Case 4)
    APPLICANT                           COUNSEL:  Mr. Louis P. Font

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for  reconsideration,  he  requests  that  he  be
retroactively reinstated to active  duty,  effective  1 January  1993,  with
entitlement to all back pay  and  allowances  and  subsequent  in  the  zone
promotions to the present and continuing; he was  appointed  an  officer  in
the Regular Air Force in  1988;  all  administrative  actions  which  relied
upon, or were caused by, or generated because of, a falsified AF Form  2095,
which was later corrected and superseded by an AF Form  2096,  be  corrected
by expunging from the record  all  subsequent  administrative  and  punitive
actions  against  him,  i.e.,  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR),  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF), and the Wing Commander’s letter  of  17  June  1987;
and the Inspector General (IG) report submitted to  his  Wing  Commander  in
1987 be corrected  to  reflect  that  “management”  was  at  fault  for  any
discrepancy in the billeting office and that he (the billeting officer)  was
not personally at fault.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

At the time the contested events took place, the  applicant  was  a  Reserve
officer serving on extended active duty in the grade of captain.   Based  on
the fact that he was considered and nonrecommended for retention by  the  FY
1993 RIF Board, which convened on 20 July 1992, the applicant  was  released
from active duty on 31 December  1992  and  transferred  to  the  Air  Force
Reserve, effective 1 January 1993.   He  was  credited  with  11  years,  11
months and 15 days of active duty service.

Information extracted from  the  Personnel  Data  System  reveals  that  the
applicant was transferred from inactive Reserve status to an active  Reserve
position,  effective  21  July  1994.   He  has  been  an   active   Reserve
participant since that time, was promoted to the grade of  major,  effective
and with a date of rank of 1 October 1997, and, as of  the  Retirement  Year
Ending (RYE) 7 December 2002, he was credited with 21 years of  satisfactory
Federal service.

The following is a summary of the applicant’s appeals to the Board.

In an application dated 26 May 1988, the applicant requested that a 22  June
1987 Letter of Reprimand, an Unfavorable Information File, and any  and  all
references to his promotion delay to captain be declared  void  and  removed
from his records; his Unit’s Effectiveness Report (UEI) be  corrected;  and,
the report  of  an  investigating  officer,  Investigation  of  Article  138
Complaint (22 June 1988)  be  destroyed  and  all  charges  against  him  be
dropped.  The Board denied this request on 31 August  1988  (see  Record  of
Proceedings, AFBCMR 88-01963, at Exhibit F.

In an application dated 14 April 1988, the applicant requested  that  he  be
considered for award of the Air Force  Commendation  Medal  (AFCM)  for  his
accomplishments during the period March  1986  to  March  1988.   The  Board
denied this request on 31 August 1988 (see Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 88-
01797, at Exhibit G).

In an application dated 11 August 1988, the  applicant  requested  that  his
Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) closing 28 January 1988 be declared  void
and removed from his records.  The Board favorably considered  this  request
on 28 February 1989 (see Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 89-00066, at  Exhibit
H).

In applications dated  18  September  and  7  October  1992,  the  applicant
requested that his records be corrected to show that the AFCM, Leaf  Cluster
(lst OLC) for the period 13 August 1990 to  10 December  1990  was  accepted
for file in his records on or before 20 July 1992 and his corrected  record,
including a letter to the board president, be  reconsidered  by  the  FY  93
Reduction-in-Force  (RIF)  Board.   The  Board  denied  these  requests   on
4 February 1993, noting that the AFCM had been downgraded to  an  Air  Force
Achievement Medal (AFAM) and was  accepted  in  his  file  on  21  July  92.
According to the Air Force, the RIF Board saw the award.  In  addition,  the
Board accepted the Air Force  assessment  that  there  was  no  evidence  to
support the applicant’s assertion that the board did not see his  letter  to
the board president (see Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 92-02488, at  Exhibit
I).

In his current request for reconsideration, the applicant, through  counsel,
contends that since 1986, when he was relieved of his duties as a  billeting
officer,  he  was  adversely  impacted  by  inappropriate  and   prejudicial
administrative actions taken against him.  Had he  not  contested  each  and
every administrative blow, and had he not fought back administratively  with
documentation and truth on his  side,  his  career  would  have  been  ended
within a few short months of the first adverse personnel  actions.   He  was
made a scapegoat  and  a  fall  guy  by  his  squadron  commander,  who  was
responsible for everything that took  place  in  his  unit.   The  commander
succeeded in keeping in his files a false document (an  AF  Form  2095)  and
succeeded in having a referral OER indorsed by the wing commander, in  which
he erroneously attributed adverse reports about the Billeting Office to  him
(the applicant).  The Air Force recognized the validity of his position,  at
least in  eliminating  the  OER  and  promoting  him.   The  commander  also
recognized the validity of his position, at least in eliminating one of  the
AF Forms 2095.  However, in reviewing  this  overall  situation,  the  Board
should be aware that the adverse, wrongful personnel  actions  to  which  he
was subjected  held  him  back  and  hindered  his  career.   The  delay  in
promotion meant that he could not appear before a Regular Officer board  and
become a Regular Officer.  In addition,  the  administrative  and  personnel
actions that were allowed to remain as part of  his  record  also  adversely
affected his chance to earn a Regular appointment.

Had it not been for the delay in his promotion, he would have been  promoted
on schedule.  He had been selected for promotion  but  the  promotion  delay
was put into effect and kept in effect on the basis of  an  IG  report,  and
subsequent adverse  personnel  actions  taken  against  him.   Subsequently,
after he pointed out to his commanders through his  various  complaints  and
correspondence that an  AF  Form  2095  had  been  falsified  and  that  the
referral OER he received was fatally deficient, the report was removed  from
his records and he was promoted to captain with back pay.  However,  he  was
not given a regular appointment.  Had he been a regular  officer,  he  would
never been discharged  under  the  RIF  because  such  discharges  were  for
Reserve officers, not  Regular  officers.   Under  these  circumstances,  it
would be just and right for the Board to rectify this situation by  granting
the relief sought in this application.

The false AF Forms 2095, dated 8 July 1987 and 10 August  1987,  which  were
entirely inappropriate and were executed in  an  attempt  to  make  him  the
scapegoat for the discrepancies in billeting found by the IG and which  were
subsequently  corrected  because  of  his  complaints,   have   never   been
adequately assessed by the Air Force and redressed.

The  1987  IG  report  followed  a  local   written   policy   to,   “assign
responsibility for the problem  as  specifically  as  possible  and  at  the
lowest level where the problem can be corrected.”(emphasis added.) There  is
nothing in the record to suggest that the basis for such a  policy  was  any
regulation  or  law  that  such  a  policy  was  applied   Air   Force-wide.
Therefore, this local policy was inequitable and illegal.  It  was  this  IG
report and its having been interpreted by higher command  as  placing  blame
on him, which was the genesis of his troubles and  which  derailed  his  Air
Force career.  His squadron commander received an LOR for the state  of  the
squadron.  Under the circumstances, where he  was  required  to  follow  the
orders and policies instituted by his commander, who was himself  deficient,
it is patently unfair to hold him responsible.  Furthermore, after a  review
of his Article 138 complaint, the wing commander was ordered to  review  the
Article 138 file and to  consider  early  removal  and  replacement  of  the
squadron commander.  Under the circumstances, allowing any  of  the  adverse
administrative actions taken by the squadron commander to remain a  blot  on
his career is unjust and inappropriate.

In support of his  requests,  the  applicant  submits  a  brief  by  counsel
elaborating on the above  contentions,  and  reporting  on  the  applicant’s
recent background as a member of  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  and  copies  of
documents associated with the issues cited in  his  contentions.   Counsel’s
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPOC recommended denial of the applicant’s request for a Regular  Air
Force appointment.  DPPPOC noted  that  the  applicant  was  considered  and
selected for promotion by  the  CY  1987A  Captain  Selection  Board,  which
convened on 20 January 1987, and, was nonselected for a  Regular  Air  Force
Appointment and selected for Indefinite Reserve Status by that  same  board.
The applicant was also nonselected for a Regular appointment by the CY  1990
Regular Air Force Appointment Board,  which  convened  on  20  August  1990.
DPPPOC stated that even if the applicant’s promotion had not  been  delayed,
he would not have been tendered a Regular  Air  Force  appointment  in  1987
(see Exhibit K).

AFPC/JA recommended that all of the applicant’s claims be rejected based  on
the following reasons.

In JA’s view, the applicant’s current submissions do not meet  the  criteria
for reconsideration because he has provided no new evidence to  support  his
claims; rather, he has enlisted the aid of an attorney to simply rework  all
of the previous arguments he had to the Board, utilizing  existing  evidence
and supported exclusively by his  and  his  attorney’s  opinions.   The  law
makes clear that “argument,” defined as an effort to establish belief  by  a
course of reasoning, is not evidence.  Similarly “new or rehashed  arguments
do not constitute ‘new evidence’ as the term is used  in  (AFR  31-3).”   As
such, JA does not believe that applicant has met  the  requisite  regulatory
standard  for  reconsideration  (newly  discovered  evidence  that  was  not
available when the application was previously considered).  Therefore,  they
recommended denial of the application on that basis.

As to the merits, it is JA’s opinion that the applicant has failed to  prove
an error or  injustice  warranting  relief.   JA  stated  that  all  of  the
applications, including the request for reconsideration,  have  centered  on
the applicant’s desire to rewrite history with respect to the  actions  that
occurred in the 1987-1988 timeframe when he was assigned first as  billeting
officer and then as the services squadron’s operations officer at  his  unit
of assignment in Japan.  By way of background, on 23 March 1987,  the  major
air command issued a unit effectiveness inspection report  which  rated  the
billeting operation as unsatisfactory.  Less than  two  weeks  later,  on  3
April 1987, the applicant was relieved of his duties as  billeting  officer.
He received an LOR on 22 June 1987 and on 18 September 1987,  his  commander
placed his name on the control roster  for  a  period  of  four  months  and
established a UIF.   In  addition,  on  13  September  1987,  his  commander
notified the applicant that his promotion to captain would  be  delayed  for
six months.  The applicant filed an application for  redress  under  Article
138 and a complaint under Article 138, UCMJ, and, on  22  January  1998,  an
investigating officer recommended that  the  LOR  remain  intact,  that  the
applicant’s attempts to remove a July 1987 OER be supported by the  numbered
Air Force commander and that actions to replace  the  applicant’s  commander
with a strong leader in the interim be accelerated.  On 4 January 1988,  the
numbered Air  Force  commander  found  that  LOR,  control  roster  and  UIF
actions, and the action to delay  the  applicant’s  promotion  were  proper.
The commander provided a letter to the applicant supporting removal  of  the
July 1987 OER.  The applicant seeks reinstatement on active  duty  based  on
his belief that the actions that  occurred  in  1987  precluded  his  having
received a Regular Air Force appointment, which, in turn,  would  have  made
in him ineligible for consideration by the FY 1993 RIF Board.

In this latest iteration, the applicant has concentrated  his  focus  on  an
Air Force (AF) Form 2095 completed in 1987, which he believes was  falsified
and somehow responsible for the unjustified actions complained of.  In  JA’s
opinion, this argument is baseless.  As noted by the applicant himself,  the
AF Form 2095 in question, which reflected an incorrect date for a change  in
the applicant’s AFSC from billeting officer to services operations  officer,
was corrected by a subsequent AF Form 2096 (the  date  had  been  off  by  a
little over a month).  JA  stated  that  the  applicant  has  not  presented
evidence -- either previously or with this request  for  reconsideration  --
to support his belief that the commander created the original AF  Form  2095
improperly or falsely.  Even if it was, however, the evidence is clear  that
this form did not underlie the basis for the adverse actions  taken  against
the applicant of which he previously and presently complains.   The  adverse
actions taken against the applicant that were  ultimately  sustained  within
the Article 138 and IG processes were based on his  poor  performance  as  a
billeting officer when he was actually in  that  position  and  his  overall
shortcomings as an officer given his grade and time in service.

JA also noted that the actions taken in this case were completely  addressed
within the Article 138 and IG  complaint  processes  and  again  before  the
Board in the applicant’s 1988 applications.  JA stated  that  the  Board  at
that time correctly  concluded  that  the  adverse  personnel  actions  that
remained intact after these investigations were  indeed  properly  rendered,
reflected  accurate   assessments   or   criticisms   of   the   applicant’s
performance, and  should  not  be  removed  as  alleged  by  the  applicant.
Specifically, the 22 June 1987 LOR cited an overall lack  of  leadership  on
the part of the applicant and his poor command of the English  language,  in
particular, his poor written communication.  The UIF cites  the  applicant’s
poor command of written communications, his inability  to  manage  resources
assigned to  him,  and  his  undiplomatic  dealings  with  subordinates  and
customers.   Moreover,  the  letters  written  by  the  numbered  Air  Force
commander, who recommended removal of the 1987 OER as not  being  completely
accurate, nevertheless noted performance inadequacies during that  reporting
period on the part of the  applicant.   In  addition,  he  found  the  other
actions taken were entirely appropriate.  In  so  concluding,  the  numbered
Air Force commander  noted  that  the  applicant’s  performance  during  the
reporting period  was  unsatisfactory  --  notwithstanding  the  commander’s
recognition that some of the comments  on  the  referral  OPR  were  clearly
inappropriate because they were based on actions  that  occurred  after  the
applicant had been removed from the billeting officer job.  JA  believes  it
is thus apparent that those in position of authority who fully  investigated
the applicant’s claims recognized exactly what  portion  of  the  blame  was
correctly attributable to the applicant, and that  portion  which  had  been
incorrectly attributed to him by his  immediate  commander.   That  evidence
was properly sorted out and the adverse actions that remained in the  record
were entirely appropriate as found by this Board in its 1988 decision.

DPPPOC noted in their advisory that the applicant  was  ultimately  promoted
to captain with his original projected date of rank and  was  considered  at
that time, as well as subsequently, for a  Regular  Air  Force  appointment.
By the time he was considered in 1990, the two OERs of which  he  complained
had been removed from his  records  and  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence
anywhere in the record to support the notion that the adverse actions  taken
against him in 1987 were otherwise reflected in his  records  or  influenced
the decision of these Regular Air Force boards  in  any  way.   It  is  JA’s
opinion that the applicant’s argument that he was  unfairly  precluded  from
obtaining a Regular Air Force appointment is without  merit  and  represents
just  another  means  to  re-litigate  the  same  arguments  he   has   made
previously.  He persists in his belief that he was treated unfairly in  1987
and that all actions adverse to him that occurred after that  point  had  to
have been based on this unfair  treatment.   JA  believes  that  the  record
suggests otherwise.

Based  on  all  the  above,  it  is  JA’s  opinion  that  his  request   for
reconsideration  should  be  denied  because  he  has  failed  to  meet  the
requisite criteria for reconsideration.  Moreover,  on  the  merits  he  has
failed to present relevant evidence of any  error  or  injustice  warranting
relief (see Exhibit L).

After citing the eligibility criteria for consideration by  the  RIF  Board,
AFPC/DPPRS stated that the RIF Board was conducted under  the  same  general
procedures  established  for  Officer  Promotion  Boards.    Board   members
considered  and  scored  records  based  on  the  “whole  person   concept.”
Officers were considered by Total Active Federal Commissioned Service  year.
 The applicant was a Reserve officer and met the criteria  for  meeting  the
RIF Board.  Based on the information provided, DPPRS recommended  denial  of
the applicant’s request.

This evaluation is at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel stated that neither the DPPPOC nor  the  JA  opinion  addresses  the
main contentions made by the applicant in his submissions to the Board.   He
asserted that he was subject to career-crippling administrative  actions  on
the basis of his race (African-American) and to make  him  a  scapegoat  for
billeting conditions.  It is an injustice that  the  administrative  actions
are allowed to stand that are contrary to the  numerous  witness  statements
the applicant submitted  and  are  exaggerations  designed  to  destroy  his
career, and which were authorized by a commander  relieved  of  his  command
and whose OERs and false AF Form 2095 were expunged  from  the  record.   In
addition, a critical written response of the IG  to  the  applicant  is  not
taken into account in  either  of  the  advisory  opinions.   That  response
reveals that the reason the IG inspection named  the  Billeting  Officer  in
its report was because of a local IG policy to  “assign  responsibility  for
the problem as specifically as possible and at the lowest  level  where  the
problem can be corrected.” (emphasis added.)

After  citing  the  instructions  to  the  RIF  Board  concerning   minority
officers, counsel states that an appropriate response  from  the  Air  Force
Personnel Center would be to provide to the  Board  and  the  applicant  for
review and analysis the appropriate statistics prepared for  review  by  the
Secretary  and  Chief  of  Staff  concerning  minority  and  women   officer
selections as compared to the selection rate for all officers considered  by
the RIF  and  Regular  Air  Force  boards.   He  is  requesting  that  these
documents be made a part of the record before the Board in this case.

Counsel reiterated the applicant’s assertions that  the  FY  1990  selection
board and the FY 1993 RIF board had before them  the  unfair  administrative
papers that remained in his file, i.e., the LOR, UIF and decision  to  delay
the applicant’s promotion to captain.  His  immediate  commander  wrongfully
took the cited actions against the applicant.  The  applicant  has  provided
evidence showing that his performance was exemplary in the  fact  of  trying
conditions not of his own making.

The author of the JA opinion shows bias on page 3  and  the  opinion  should
therefore be discounted.  JA refuses to acknowledge the evidence  of  record
showing false entries  were  actually  made  in  the  applicant’s  personnel
records.  The evidence of record shows that the AF Form 2095 was  false  and
a pattern on the part of his commander of making false  statements  for  the
purpose of destroying the applicant’s career.  In  view  of  the  flawed  AF
Form 2095 and the expunged  OPR,  this  Board  should  uphold  none  of  the
actions taken by the commander.

The advisory writer states that even if  the  record  were  falsified,  that
matter should be overlooked by the Board and is  of  no  consequence.   This
statement is wrong since the same  commander  generated  the  other  adverse
administrative actions  in  this  case  and,  therefore,  his  judgment  and
credibility are suspect and  should  be  discounted.   Counsel  asserts  the
cited documents were  generated  to  scapegoat  the  applicant,  for  racist
reasons, and to destroy his career, and, they succeeded in doing so.

Since the applicant was subject to a RIF in 1992, he  has  performed  in  an
outstanding manner as a Reserve officer  serving  various  tours  on  active
duty.  After his immediate commander during  the  period  under  review  was
relieved of his  duties,  the  applicant  was  never  again  reprimanded  or
subjected to other adverse personnel actions.  Therefore, it would  be  fair
for the Board to expunge from  the  record  the  adverse  personnel  actions
against the applicant and provide other relief accordingly.

A complete copy of counsel’s comments is at Exhibit O.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After reviewing all the evidence provided, we do not believe a  revision
of earlier Board findings in the applicant’s cases is warranted.  While  the
applicant specifically requests reconsideration of his 1992 requests,  since
the issues raised in his current submissions include the matters  considered
by the Board in his three prior appeals, we have also reviewed  those  Board
decisions.

2.  The applicant asserts that all actions taken against him were  based  on
the results of two  unit  inspections  conducted  in  1986  and  1987.   His
allegations have, over time, undergone exhaustive reviews as a result of  an
Article 138 investigation, an IG Investigation, and based on the  submission
of an inquiry by a member of Congress.  With regard to the  latter  inquiry,
we note the response by the Major Air  Command  IG  in  their  January  1988
message and find there is nothing persuasive in the applicant’s  submissions
to this Board that would lead us to believe  that  the  information  in  the
inspections  was  erroneous,  his  commanders  abused  their   discretionary
authority, their findings were based on factors other than sound  management
principles, or he was inequitably treated in any way.  We took note  of  the
applicant’s assertion that the actions taken against him were based on
discrimination.   However,  he  has  provided  no  documentary  evidence  to
substantiate this claim.  We therefore find no basis to  favorably  consider
the applicant’s requests with respect to the LOR, UIF, promotion delay,  and
the IG Report.

3.  As to the applicant’s assertions concerning the  forms  related  to  his
assignment action in 1987, other than his own assertions, the applicant  has
provided no persuasive evidence to support his assertion  of  falsification.
In reviewing the cited documents (AF Forms 2095 and 2096)  we  are  left  to
conclude that the AF Form 2096  was  issued  to  correct  an  administrative
error and we accept the JA assessment that  any  error  resulting  from  the
issuance of the earlier  AF  Form  2095  was  harmless  since  there  is  no
indication the AF form 2095 had any bearing on  the  adverse  actions  taken
against the applicant.

4.  Based on our findings with respect to  the  contested  adverse  actions,
the applicant’s records were accurate when he was considered for  a  Regular
Air Force appointment by the boards convened on 20 January  1987  (prior  to
the time the now voided July 1987 and January 1988  reports  were  prepared)
and 20 August 1990 (after the contested reports were voided);  and,  by  the
FY 1993 RIF Board.  Therefore, we have no basis to  favorably  consider  his
request that his records be corrected to show he was selected for a  Regular
appointment and to set aside the determination of the RIF Board.

5.  In view of the above  and  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  documentary
evidence by the applicant to support his claims, other than  his  statements
and the statements by his counsel, we agree with the Air  Force  assessments
of his case and do not find his submissions sufficient to  support  findings
of error or injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s appeal is denied.

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 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 17 December 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck Panel Chair
                       Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 88-01963, dated
            28 October 1988, with Exhibits.
      Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 88-01797, dated
            28 October 1988, with Exhibits.
      Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 89-00066, dated
            28 March 1989, with Exhibits.
      Exhibit I  Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 92-02488, dated
            4 March 1993, with Exhibits.
      Exhibit J. Counsel’s Letter, dated 8 May 2002, with
            attachments.
      Exhibit K. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 19 November 2002,
            with attachments.
      Exhibit L. Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 23 December 2002.
      Exhibit M. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 December 2002,
            With attachment.
      Exhibit N. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 January 2002.
      Exhibit O. Counsel’s statement, dated 4 March 2003.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair