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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1995-03805

            COUNSEL:  ARMANDO DE LEON

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected by the  Calendar  Year
1994 (CY94) Central Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7  August  1996,  the  Board  considered  applicant’s  request  that  the
Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  prepared  for  the  CY94A  board  be
declared void and he be promoted to the grade of colonel as if  selected  by
the CY94A board.  The Board found sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  voiding
the contested PRF  and  replacing  it  with  a  PRF  reflecting  an  overall
evaluation   of   “Promote,”   and   providing   the   applicant   promotion
consideration by a Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  CY94A  board.
However, the Board found insufficient evidence to warrant  direct  promotion
through the correction of records process (Exhibit H).

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
colonel for the CY94A board by an SSB that convened on 13 January 1997.

On 11 May 1999, the Board considered  applicant’s  request  that  the  Field
Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 April  1993
through 31 March 1994, be removed from his  records;  his  nonselection  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by the SSB be declared  void;  and  he  be
promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected  by  the  CY94  board.   The
Board found sufficient evidence to warrant voiding  the  contested  OPR  and
providing him promotion consideration by another SSB for  the  CY94A  board.
However, the Board again found insufficient evidence of a probable error  or
injustice to warrant his direct promotion to the grade  of  colonel  through
the correction of records process.  The Board  found  insufficient  evidence
of an error or injustice and denied the application.  For an  accounting  of
the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and  the  rationale
of the earlier decision by the Board,  see  the  Record  of  Proceedings  at
Exhibit L.

On 10 January 2000, the  applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by SSBs for the CY94A,  CY96A,  and  CY98C
boards.

In a letter to the President of the United States, dated 17 June  2000,  the
applicant requested direct promotion to the  grade  of  colonel  contending,
among other things, that the 10 January 2000 SSB that considered his  record
for the CY94A, CY96A, and CY98C boards was composed  of  the  same  members.
His letter to the President was forwarded to the  Air  Force  for  response.
In the response, the applicant was advised that since his request  contained
new  issues,  additional  advisory  opinions  would  be  obtained  prior  to
presenting his request to the Board for  possible  reconsideration  (Exhibit
O).

On 17  July  2000,  the  applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by SSBs for the  CY95A  and  CY97B  boards
(Exhibit P).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPB states that the applicant’s record was accurate and complete  when
presented to the SSBs and no documents were missing from his record.

The AFPC/DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit Q.

AFPC/DPPPA recommends denial of his request  for  direct  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel and states that they found no discrepancies in his  Officer
Selection Record (OSR).

The AFPC/DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit R.

AFPC/JA states, in part,  that  the  same  panel  members  can  consider  an
individual’s  promotion  record  for  nonconsecutive  calendar  years.   The
members in question sat on the CY94A, CY96A, and CY98C boards,  but  not  on
the boards that fell in between.  Since the governing statute provides  that
no officer  may  be  a  member  of  two  successive  selection  boards,  the
situation complained of is not illegal and is entirely proper.  With  regard
to his complaint that one board member may have  had  some  prior  knowledge
about him, he has provided no evidence that the circumstances, if it  indeed
existed,  had  any  effect  whatsoever  on  the  SSB  considering  him   for
promotion.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit S.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 1 December 2000 for review and response within 30 days.  On  15
December 2000, the applicant  requested  that  his  request  be  temporarily
withdrawn (Exhibit U).

In a letter,  dated  3  January  2002,  the  applicant’s  counsel  requested
reconsideration of applicant’s request that he be promoted to the  grade  of
colonel as if selected by the CY94 board.  Counsel contends  that  the  most
recent SSBs failed  to  properly  follow  the  Board’s  directives  and  the
applicable Air Force Instructions and the  10 January  2000  SSB  failed  to
properly consider the applicant’s full record (Exhibit X).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPB states that the SSBs were legal and in accordance  with  governing
directives.  While the applicant’s counsel cites  AFI  36-2504,  the  proper
governing directive is AFI 36-2501.

The AFPC/DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit AA.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request  for  direct  promotion
to  the  grade  of  colonel  and  states,  in  part,  that  the  Board   has
consistently concluded that  the  evidence  provided  by  the  applicant  is
insufficient  to  warrant  his  direct  promotion  to  colonel  through  the
correction  of  records  process.   Although  the  applicant’s  request  for
reconsideration  includes  numerous  general  arguments  of   counsel,   and
opinions of individuals favorable to  the  applicant,  it  provides  no  new
substantive evidence from his previous submissions  on  this  issue.   There
continues to be insufficient evidence of extraordinary circumstances,  which
would be required for the  Board  to  usurp  the  prerogative  of  selection
boards in deciding which  officers  are  promoted.   Furthermore,  the  SSBs
properly compared  the  applicant’s  record  to  a  sampling  of  the  other
records,  including  records  of  candidates  who  were  and  who  were  not
promoted.  There is no statutory or regulatory requirement for  a  different
procedure.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit BB.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant’s counsel states, in part,  that  it  is  impossible  for  the
applicant to get promoted by an SSB.  The first and  only  real  opportunity
the applicant had was when he was first considered in  1994;  however,  that
opportunity was jeopardized by the injustice done  to  him  because  of  the
wrongful actions of his senior rater.  Extraordinary circumstances exist  to
require the Board to usurp the prerogative of the SSBs.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit DD.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice warranting applicant’s direct  promotion  to
the grade of colonel through the correction of  records  process.   Contrary
to counsel’s assertion, the same panel member can consider  an  individual’s
promotion record for nonconsecutive calendar years.  In addition, there  has
been no evidence presented to substantiate that one board  member  may  have
had  some  prior  knowledge  of  the  applicant  and  that  this   knowledge
prejudiced  his  ability   to   receive   fair   and   equitable   promotion
consideration.  In view of the above, and in the  absence  of  extraordinary
circumstances warranting circumvention of the SSB process, we find no  basis
upon which to recommend favorable consideration of his  request  for  direct
promotion to the grade of colonel.  Therefore, we agree  with  the  opinions
and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the  rationale  expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his
burden that he has suffered either an error  or  an  injustice.   Hence,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 additional  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  Docket  Number  BC-1995-03805
in Executive Session on 24 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                       Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit L.  Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                        dated 1 Jul 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit M.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Jan 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit N.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Feb 99.
    Exhibit O.  Applicant, dated 17 Jun 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit P.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 11 Sep 00.
    Exhibit Q.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 28 Sep 00.
    Exhibit R.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 25 Oct 00.
    Exhibit S.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 17 Nov 00.
    Exhibit T.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Dec 00.
    Exhibit U.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 00.
    Exhibit V.  Letter, Counsel, dated 25 Oct 01.
    Exhibit W.  Letter, Counsel, dated 3 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit X.  Letter, Sen McCain, dated 19 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit Y.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Mar 02.
    Exhibit Z.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 19 Apr 02.
    Exhibit AA.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 6 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit BB.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 and 28 May 02.
    Exhibit CC.  Letter, Counsel, dated 18 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit DD.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jun 02.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair