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

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1995-01626
                                        INDEX CODE  111.01   111.05
                                             COUNSEL:

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In his request for reconsideration, the applicant asks that he  be  informed
by letter if his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) for the  period  21  Oct
72 through 31 Aug 73 is “erroneous.”
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

As a result of nonselection  for  temporary  promotion,  the  applicant  was
honorably released from active duty in the grade of  captain  on  30 Jun  77
and transferred to the Air Force Reserves. He had 12 years, 1  month  and  1
day of active service. He was discharged from the Reserves effective 26  Oct
79.

In Dec 89, the applicant submitted an application under  the  provisions  of
AFR 31-3 with regard to the contested OER. He  indicated  that  he  did  not
want the record changed but was submitting an appeal “. .  .  as  a  prudent
measure to preserve the quality of our perpetual implied contract  in  event
AF ever directed me back into the military.” As he  did  not  respond  to  a
request for clarification, the case was never processed.

In a 21 Apr 95 appeal, the applicant asked the Board  to  “inform  [him]  by
letter if [his] Aug 73 OER is  erroneous.”  The  applicant  claimed  in  his
appeal that the indorser told him in 1975 that the report  was  “rated  low”
and the applicant should initiate action to have it  removed.  The  indorser
signed his name  in  concurrence  to  the  DD  Form  149,  but  provided  no
comments. The Air Force explained in their evaluations why  the  OER  should
not be amended or  voided  from  the  applicant’s  records  and  recommended
denial. The applicant rebutted that he never requested to  have  the  report
voided or evaluated  for  procedural  compliance.  Based  on  this  contrary
position, the AFBCMR Staff wrote the  applicant  explaining  the  correction
process in detail. The Staff  also  recommended  he  clarify  or  amend  his
appeal so the Board understood what he wanted corrected and why;  otherwise,
his request ran the risk of denial as the Board did not issue letters  along
the lines he requested.  The  Staff  also  suggested  the  applicant  obtain
corroborating statements to support his appeal. The applicant maintained  he
did not want the record changed, it was not his record, he did not  care  if
the record was changed, and again asked for a letter acknowledging  the  OER
as erroneous. On 14 Nov 96, the Board denied his appeal.

For an accounting of the facts and circumstances  surrounding  the  original
appeal and  decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record  of  Proceedings  at
Exhibit G.

The applicant proceeded to submit numerous reconsideration  requests  and  a
protracted correspondence between him and the AFBCMR Staff ensued  over  the
years. Extracted letters of that correspondence are provided at Exhibit H.

On 27 Jul 01, the applicant  provided  letters  from  the  indorser  of  the
contested OER.  In his letter to the applicant, the indorser  urged  him  to
consider the removal of the OER as that was the type  of  action  the  Board
was constituted to do. In an attached statement, the indorser  indicated  in
part that, after the report was rendered, he came to believe the ratings  in
Section VI of the report should have been marked in Box 3 instead of Box  2.
The indorser added he had previously advised the applicant  to  take  action
to have the report voided, but the applicant chose not to do so. A  copy  of
the applicant’s letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

On 17 Aug 01, the AFBCMR Staff again recommended  the  applicant  amend  his
request to one the Board could act upon so that the reconsideration  process
could continue. However, the applicant indicated on 30 Aug 01  that  he  did
not care what the Secretary of the Air Force/Chief of Staff did  with  their
document; he simply wanted a letter acknowledging the error. On 18  Sep  01,
the AFBCMR Staff  advised  the  applicant  that  reconsideration  could  not
continue until he resolved the inconsistencies of  his  appeal.   Copies  of
these letters are at Exhibit J.

The applicant continued to  correspond  with  the  AFBCMR  Staff  and  other
government and Congressional officials. In a letter dated  26  Jan  03,  the
applicant indicated he “did not care how the  AFBCMR  corrects  (amend/void)
the . . . erroneous OER.” He wants the Board to determine if the  report  is
erroneous and he be advised of that determination. He adds he  will  file  a
claim for loss of pay, allowance, compensation, etc., against the Air  Force
if the report is determined to be erroneous. Presuming the  applicant  “does
not care” what, if anything, the Board does with the contested OER,  and  in
order to reach some conclusion, the case was  forwarded  to  the  Board  for
possible reconsideration. A copy of the applicant’s letter  is  provided  at
Exhibit K.

HQ AFPC/DPPPOO informally advised the AFBCMR Staff by email that, as far  as
they could determine, the first time the contested OER was considered  by  a
selection board was either the  Fiscal  Year  1974  (FY74)  Temporary  Major
Board or the FY75 Temporary Major Board, which convened on 17 Sep 73  and  7
Oct 74, respectively.

_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice to warrant altering,  upgrading  or  voiding
the OER  in  question.  We  carefully  considered  the  statement  from  the
indorser but could not find his comments persuasive. The indorser,  who  was
an Air Force colonel at the time, indicates he had  been  in  the  unit  for
only a short time, was not familiar with the applicant, and  had  a  limited
knowledge of the Air Force  OER  system  purportedly  due  to  the  type  of
assignments he had for the last four years. The indorser  further  indicates
he did not realize “how devastating  the  rating.  .  .  could  be”  to  the
applicant. However, he  does  not  specify  or  substantiate  why  he  later
changed his mind and concluded the overall rating should have  been  higher.
His being new to or unfamiliar with  the  OER  system  does  not  inherently
signify  that  the  evaluation  as  rendered  did  not  truly  reflect   the
applicant’s performance during that  particular  rating  period.  Presumably
the rater was familiar with  the  applicant’s  performance  and  could  have
provided any needed information. Further, the comments  and  rating  do  not
seem  inconsistent  or  “devastating,”  especially  since   it   cannot   be
determined with any certainty that this OER  was  directly  responsible  for
the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.  Finally,  we  know  nothing  of
the rater’s position as he provides no  supporting  statement  corroborating
the indorser’s subsequent belief that the applicant’s  performance  for  the
contested period warranted a higher rating than the  one  indicated  on  the
contested OER.  We  would  be  willing  to  review  the  case  for  possible
reconsideration should the applicant provide  a  supporting  and  clarifying
statement from the rater. Otherwise,  since  the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or  an  injustice,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                             Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                             Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., Member
                             Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1995-
01626 was considered:

   Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 5 Dec 96, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letters between the AFBCMR and the Applicant.
   Exhibit I.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 27 Jul 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit J.  Applicant’s Letter dated 30 Aug 01, & AFBCMR’s
                   Letters, dated 17 Aug & 18 Sep 01.
   Exhibit K.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 26 Jan 03.



                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair