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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1996-02683
                                   (Case 2)

            COUNSEL:  MR. F. L. B---

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he  requests  the  following
corrections:

      a.  The Article 15, imposed on 14 March 1996, be set aside.

      b.  Reinstatement on active duty, with back pay  and  allowances,  and
full service credit.

      c.  Direct promotion to the grade of major.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 February 1996, applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose  nonjudicial  punishment  on  him  under  Article  15,   UCMJ.    The
misconduct applicant had allegedly committed was for conduct  unbecoming  an
officer and gentleman under Article 133, UCMJ;  receiving  unauthorized  aid
on a Squadron Officer School (SOS) examination and with failure to  obey  an
order or regulation under Article 92, UCMJ; and, willfully removing  an  SOS
examination answer sheet from the test site during an  examination.   On  14
March 1996, after considering the matters presented by  the  applicant,  the
commander determined that  the  applicant  committed  one  or  more  of  the
offenses alleged  and  imposed  punishment.   The  punishment  consisted  of
forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months and a reprimand.  On 10  May
1996, the appellate authority denied applicant’s appeal to the Article 15.

Due to the Article 15, discharge action  was  initiated  on  20 August  1996
and, on 4 September 1996, the applicant submitted his  resignation  in  lieu
of further administrative discharge action.  On 2 June 1997,  the  Secretary
of the Air Force accepted the resignation and directed  that  the  applicant
be removed from active duty and issued a general discharge.   The  applicant
was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3207  (misconduct)  on  6 June
1997.  He had completed a total of 8 years and 6 days  and  was  serving  in
the grade of captain at the time of discharge.

A similar appeal for dismissal of the Article 15 action was  considered  and
denied by the Board on 22 April 1997.  A summary of the evidence  considered
by the Board and the rationale for its decision is set forth in  the  Record
of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

On 23 March 2001, the applicant appealed, with counsel,  to  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for upgrade of  his  discharge  to  honorable
and a change to the narrative reason  for  separation.   The  applicant  was
granted a personal appearance and submitted a polygraph test in  support  of
his appeal.  The AFDRB found that the applicant  was  properly  administered
nonjudicial punishment for dereliction  of  duty;  however,  they  were  not
convinced that he cheated on the exam.  Therefore, the AFDRB concluded  that
a general discharge was inequitable in light of the  sole  remaining  charge
of dereliction of duty and  the  applicant’s  duty  record.   On  3 December
2001, the  AFDRB  upgraded  his  discharge  to  honorable  and  changed  the
narrative reason from “misconduct” to “secretarial authority” (Exhibit G).

In the  applicant’s  most  recent  request  for  reconsideration,  submitted
through counsel, he amended his initial request for relief  from  the  Board
as indicated in the above request.  Counsel believes  that  after  reviewing
the applicant’s evidence and personal credibility, the Board  will  conclude
that the applicant did not cheat on the SOS exam; that he  should  not  have
been punished by an Article 15; and, that he should not have been,  for  all
intents and purposes, railroaded out of the Air Force.  Counsel states  that
there is no evidence of cheating and the applicant deserves the  benefit  of
any lingering doubt on this point.  The AFDRB believed him and upgraded  his
discharge  to  honorable,  with  no  stigma  attached  to  the  reason   for
discharge.  Counsel asks that the Board complete the job  of  restoring  the
applicant to where he would have been if he had never been wrongly  accused.
 To support this reconsideration request, counsel submits a Legal  Brief,  a
copy  of  the  polygraph  test,  and  copies  of  additional  correspondence
concerning the issues under review.  Counsel’s  complete  submission  is  at
Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  following  advisory  opinions  were
submitted.

HQ AFPC/DPPR believes the discharge was  a  valid  discharge.   DPPR  states
that,  based  upon  the  documentation  in  the  file,  the  discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation.  This evaluation is at Exhibit I.


HQ AFPC/DPPPO provided the  following  information  concerning  a  potential
promotion issue.  Based on the applicant’s Date of Rank (DOR) of 5  December
1992 to the grade of captain, he was eligible to meet the following  central
selection boards to the grade of major:  CY97C  (15  June  1997)  Below-the-
Promotion Zone (BPZ), CY98B (6 April 1998) BPZ, CY99A (8 March 1999) In-the-
Promotion Zone (IPZ), and CY00A (24 January 2000)  Above-the-Promotion  Zone
(APZ).  DPPPO states that, had the applicant been selected to major  IPZ  by
the CY99A Central Major Selection Board, his DOR to major would have been  1
May 2000.  This evaluation is at Exhibit J.


HQ AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.   JA  states  that  neither
the polygraph results nor the favorable action  by  the  AFDRB  warrant  the
additional relief sought by the applicant from this  Board.   The  applicant
has not demonstrated the existence  of  an  error  or  injustice  justifying
corrective action.

JA indicates that the polygraph which the applicant submits  in  support  of
this  appeal  and  which  was  submitted  to  the  AFDRB  was  obtained   at
applicant’s request  on  29 November  2000,  well  over  three  years  after
applicant’s discharge from the Air Force.  Allowing an applicant  to  obtain
review  simply  by  submitting  evidence  of  a  polygraph   taken--at   the
discretion of the applicant--years after  the  events  complained  of  would
render the statutory time limitation meaningless.  The applicant  bases  his
present petition, in large part, on his  personal  credibility.   He  argues
that on the three previous occasions when  he  has  presented  his  case  in
person--before the investigating officer, before the AFDRB, and  before  the
polygrapher--he has  been  “deemed  credible”  and  that  the  Board  should
likewise find him to be credible and grant relief.   However,  JA  indicates
that the record before the Board demonstrates that applicant’s  own  account
of critical facts forming the basis of the disciplinary action  against  him
has varied over  time.   JA  submits  that,  in  assessing  the  applicant’s
credibility, the Board should carefully consider his previous statements  of
record   and   the   implausibility   of   his   present   explanation   for
inconsistencies.

With regards to the conduct of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA)  and  AETC/CV,
JA states that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  the  Air  Force
is entitled to rely on the presumption of  regularity  that  the  government
official in question discharged his duties in good faith and  in  accordance
with the law.  The applicant has not demonstrated by a preponderance of  the
evidence that either the SJA or AETC/CV acted improperly in this matter.

As to the polygraph report, it is JA’s opinion that it does not satisfy  the
applicant’s burden of establishing the existence of an  error  or  injustice
by a preponderance of the evidence.

As to what impart, if any,  the  AFDRB  decision  has  on  the  AFBCMR  when
considering the applicant’s most recent appeal, JA indicates that the  Board
may not reverse the favorable relief the AFDRB has already  granted  to  the
applicant.  However, while the Board is bound by the  action  taken  by  the
AFDRB, the discussion set forth in the  AFDRB’s  decisional  rationale  does
not in any way limit the board discretionary authority of the AFBCMR in  its
own decision regarding whether to grant further  relief  to  the  applicant.
This Board is free to accept or reject the conclusions of the  AFDRB  as  to
the applicant’s contentions.

In the present case, the AFDRB found no  impropriety,  but  found  that  the
record substantiated an  inequity  to  justify  an  upgrade  of  applicant’s
discharge.   Placing  the  burden  on  the  applicant  to  demonstrate   the
existence of the alleged error  or  injustice  by  a  preponderance  of  the
evidence is entirely appropriate in a non-adversary forum such as  this  (or
the AFDRB) where the government is not represented and  does  not  have  the
opportunity to present its case.  HQ AFPC/JA’s evaluation is at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Having  been  provided  the  advisory  opinions,  counsel  agrees  with   HQ
AFPC/DPPPO’s opinion concerning the promotion issue.  Counsel  indicates  HQ
AFPC/DPPPR did not  address  the  new  evidence  submitted;  i.e.,  the  two
polygraphs the applicant passed and the fact that  the  AFDRB  upgraded  the
discharge.

The following is in response to HQ AFPC/JA’s opinion.  Counsel  states  that
this is an admittedly complex case and the applicant  did  change  at  least
one part of his original testimony when he realized he  was  wrong  about  a
fact.  The reviewers of the written case file have sometimes seized on  this
to attack his credibility.  This may not have been  unreasonable  initially,
but it is unreasonable to continue to do so  when  the  applicant  explained
these matters in person before a panel of  experienced  judges  (the  AFDRB)
and a majority of these  officers  found  his  explanations  credible.   The
applicant has passed two related polygraphs and while the  JA  review  seeks
to diminish the importance of these, the fact of the  matter  is  that  this
polygrapher was particularly well qualified and this  can  be  verified  on-
line.  The JA review holds the applicant to a standard of  perfection  about
a point that the applicant could not have reasonably thought  was  important
when he made his  initial  statement.   The  applicant  did  not  “test  the
merits” of his case at a trial (court-martial) because  he  was  offered  an
Article 15.  Accepting an Article 15 is not an admission of guilt; it  is  a
choice of forum.  The applicant believed his commander would recognize  that
the government had no evidence to confirm  the  charge  of  cheating  so  he
elected  (based  on  advice  of  military  counsel)  to  submit  a   written
presentation.   The  applicant’s  reasons  for  originally  submitting   his
request for discharge have  been  fully  and  reasonably  explained  in  the
original application, but the fact remains  that  the  applicant  was  quite
willing to risk everything to prove  his  innocence…it  was  the  government
that, for reasons they can only guess, was unwilling to risk a hearing.

Counsel challenges anyone to comb through  the  entire  case  and  find  one
single shred of evidence to show where there  was  any  “unauthorized  aid.”
The applicant got as many questions  wrong  as  he  normally  did  on  these
tests, which is addressed in detail in the original application.  There  was
no rule against taking the answer sheet from the site.   Any  notes  written
on the answer sheet, and there is no  rule  against  writing  notes  on  the
answer sheet, were obviously not done after  consulting  outside  materials.
If he had any sort of outside information, he would  have  marked  down  the
answers, not made notes.  With respect to dereliction of  duty  by  removing
the answer sheet from the test site, this was not briefed to  the  applicant
and the other test-taker corroborates this.  The applicant would  have  been
expected to have done better if he had cheated and he did exactly  the  same
as his average on his previous four tests.  In fact, his score  of  78%  was
lower than the 85% and 89% he had gotten on the two most recent tests.

Counsel indicates that JA is correct  in  saying  that  polygraphs  are  not
admissible in courts-martial, but this is not a  court-martial.   They  also
point out that it can be admissible in an administrative  hearing  with  the
consent of the parties.  If there were genuine  belief  that  the  polygraph
was less than 50% accurate they would not allow it under any  circumstances.
 If the polygraph is as unreliable as JA would have you  believe,  why  does
the government hire so many polygraphers?   Since  a  preponderance  of  the
evidence standard is used by the Board, and the  applicant  has  passed  two
polygraphs, this is evidence that can be fairly considered.

There never has been any evidence of  cheating  and  the  case  against  the
applicant rests largely on the assumption  that  he  somehow  lied  in  this
case.  Counsel explained that, while the applicant is  responsible  for  the
confusion that arose when he corrected his statement about taking notes,  he
did not lie.  Counsel’s complete review is at Exhibit M.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In earlier findings in the case for dismissal of the Article 15 action,  the
Board determined that the evidence provided was insufficient to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After  again  reviewing  this
application and the evidence  in  the  applicant’s  most  recent  submission
pertaining to the nonjudicial punishment, we are of the opinion that  relief
is appropriate based on the existence  of  an  injustice.   We  believe  the
Article 15 action and the resultant punishment were overly  harsh  based  on
the totality of the case file.  In this  respect,  we  noted  that  the  Air
Force Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  was  not  convinced  the  applicant
cheated on the SOS examination and, therefore,  upgraded  his  discharge  to
honorable and changed his narrative reason for  separation  to  “Secretarial
Authority.”  As to the dereliction of duty for  removing  the  answer  sheet
from the test site, according to the Report of  Investigation  (ROI),  other
test takers stated that the posted rules were not noticed and there  was  no
briefing provided concerning the rules, which corroborates  the  applicant’s
claim.  We also noted that the test score under review was  lower  than  the
two most  recent  tests.   We  noted  the  ROI  investigating  officer  (IO)
concluded there was insufficient evidence to clearly prove or  disprove  the
allegation of cheating and that no Air Force policy  or  law  was  violated.
The IO recommended no action be taken, but  the  applicant  was  offered  an
Article 15.  It appears that the  applicant  made  a  critical  decision  to
waive his right for a trial by  court-martial  and  accept  the  nonjudicial
proceedings based on incorrect advice provided  by  his  counsel.   Had  the
applicant not relied on erroneous  information  in  deciding  to  waive  his
right for trial by court-martial, the Government would  have  been  required
to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Although  the  commander
may have been within his discretionary authority in  taking  the  action  he
did, the subsequent documentation presented by the applicant has  caused  us
to question the action taken by the commander.   We  believe  the  commander
may have been overly harsh and unjust in his decision to  take  disciplinary
action.  Additionally, the  applicant’s  Polygraph  Examination,  concerning
the cheating issue, showed  “No  Deception.”   After  reviewing  applicant’s
submissions,  which  include  the  ROI,  the  29 November   2000   Polygraph
Examination, the AFDRB Hearing Record and the evidence of record, we do  not
believe it was the intent of the applicant to remove the answer  sheet  from
the testing room.  Since we are not convinced that  the  applicant  did,  in
fact, intentionally remove the answer sheet from the testing  room  or  that
he cheated on the test, we believe this doubt should be  resolved  in  favor
of the applicant.  While we normally would not substitute our  judgment  for
that of the commander, based on the foregoing, we recommend the  Article  15
action be set aside and removed from the applicant’s records.

Although the applicant did not raise the issue, the  Article  15  apparently
caused his Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period  1  August  1995
through 24 September 1996, to be rendered as a  referral  report.   Inasmuch
as we have recommended that the Article 15 should  be  voided  entirely,  we
also recommend the referral report be removed from his record since  it  was
driven by the nonjudicial punishment.

With regards to  applicant’s  request  for  reinstatement,  considering  the
circumstances, it is reasonable to understand why  the  applicant  felt  his
career in the Air Force had been  jeopardized  and,  therefore,  elected  to
resign.  Based on the determination  that  the  applicant  should  not  have
received the Article 15 and in view of his previous outstanding  record,  we
believe appropriate relief  should  be  effected  by  reinstatement  of  the
applicant as a member of the Regular Air Force to continue  his  career  and
we so recommend.

Notwithstanding the above, we are unpersuaded that the applicant  should  be
directly promoted to the grade of major.  Absent clear-cut evidence that  he
would have been a selectee had the contested Article  15  and  Referral  OPR
not been considered, we believe that  a  duly  constituted  selection  board
applying the  complete  promotion  criteria  is  in  the  most  advantageous
position to render this vital determination.  Consequently, we  are  of  the
opinion that consideration by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)  affords  the
applicant appropriate and fitting relief.  We therefore  recommend  that  he
be considered by a SSB for promotion to the grade of  major  by  the  CY97C,
with inclusion of his corrected record.

Further, because of the long period of  time  since  applicant’s  separation
and in order to provide  him  an  opportunity  to  establish  a  competitive
record  for  promotion  consideration,  we  believe  that,  should   he   be
considered and nonselected for promotion to the  grade  of  major  prior  to
obtaining at least two current  OPRs,  his  nonselection(s)  should  be  set
aside.

In  our  opinion,  the  above-recommended  corrections  to  the  applicant’s
records provide full and fitting  relief.   In  view  of  our  findings,  we
recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

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

      a.  The nonjudicial punishment under  the  provision  of  Article  15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice, initiated on 13 February 1996 and  imposed
on 14 March 1996, and any and all references thereto, be declared  void  and
expunged from his records, and all rights, privileges and property of  which
he may have been deprived be restored.

      b.  The Company  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  707B,
rendered for  the  period  1 August  1995  through  24  September  1996,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

      c.  He was not discharged from all appointments on  6 June  1997,  but
was continued on active duty and was ordered  Permanent  Change  of  Station
(PCS) to his home of record (home of selection) pending further orders.

      d.  An Air Force Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet,  be  prepared
and inserted in the  record  in  its  proper  sequence  indicating  that  no
performance report is available for the  period  when  the  member  was  not
serving on active duty  and  containing  the  statement,  “Report  for  this
period not available for administrative reasons which were not the fault  of
the member.”

      e.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a  Special
Selection Board (SSB)  for  Calendar  Year  1997C  Major  Central  Selection
Board, and any subsequent boards for which the now corrected OPR was  not  a
matter of record.

      f.  If he is considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade  of
major prior to receiving two current Officer  Performance  Reports,  in  the
grade of captain, his nonselection(s) be set aside.

      g.  If he is considered and selected for promotion  to  the  grade  of
major prior to receiving a minimum of two Officer Performance Reports,  with
at  least  250  days  of  supervision,  in   the   grade   of   major,   any
nonselection(s) for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  be  set
aside.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 4 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member
              Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-1996-02683.

      Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 12 August 1997,
                with Exhibits.
      Exhibit G.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 December 2001.
      Exhibit H.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 16 July 2002, with
                reconsideration appeal.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPR, dated 24 April 2003.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 29 May 2003.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 16 June 2003.
      Exhibit L.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 June 2003.
      Exhibit M.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 16 July 2003.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-1996-02683


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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  The nonjudicial punishment under the provision of Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice, initiated on 13 February 1996 and imposed
on 14 March 1996, and any and all references thereto, be, and hereby are,
declared void and expunged from his records, and all rights, privileges and
property of which he may have been deprived be restored.

      b.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B,
rendered for the period 1 August 1995 through 24 September 1996, be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      c.  He was not discharged from all appointments on 6 June 1997, but
was continued on active duty and was ordered Permanent Change of Station
(PCS) to his home of record (home of selection) pending further orders.

      d.  An Air Force Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, be prepared
and inserted in the record in its proper sequence indicating that no
performance report is available for the period when the member was not
serving on active duty and containing the statement, “Report for this
period not available for administrative reasons which were not the fault of
the member.”

      e.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special
Selection Board (SSB) for Calendar Year 1997C Major Central Selection
Board, and any subsequent boards for which the now corrected OPR was not a
matter of record.

      f.  If he is considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of
major prior to receiving two current Officer Performance Reports, in the
grade of captain, his nonselection(s) be, and hereby are, set aside.

      g.  If he is considered and selected for promotion to the grade of
major prior to receiving a minimum of two Officer Performance Reports, with
at least 250 days of supervision, in the grade of major, any
nonselection(s) for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be, and
hereby are, set aside.



            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency



MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
                   MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM: SAF/MRB


SUBJECT:    APPLICANT, Docket Number BC-1996-02683



      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case,
including the rationale of the Board’s recommendation to partially grant.
However, I believe further relief is appropriate.


      The Panel recommends removing the derogatory documents from the
applicant’s records, reinstatement of the applicant on active duty and
promotion consideration by the appropriate Special Selection Boards (SSBs).
 I disagree with the Panel’s recommendation for promotion consideration by
an SSB.  In this respect, there is no way to determine whether or not the
applicant would have been selected for promotion to major by the Calendar
Year 1997C Major Central Selection Board had the actions taken against him
never happened.  If the applicant had remained on active duty, he would
have acquired a breath of experience and served in varied assignments,
thereby demonstrating his value to the Air Force and his potential to serve
in the next higher grade.  In addition, it was noted that he has not
completed the appropriate level of Professional Military Education; i.e.,
Squadron Officer School, in order to be competitive with his peers.
Without these factors and with an almost seven-year gap in his record, the
applicant is at a distinct disadvantage in comparison with his peers and
will never be able to compete for promotion to the grade of major on a fair
and equitable basis.  Therefore, I believe he should be promoted to major
through the correction board process.


      In arriving at my decision, I am aware that the courts have held that
military correction boards have an abiding moral sanction to determine what
constitutes an error or an injustice and to take steps to grant full and
fitting relief.  I, therefore, believe that by promoting the applicant to
major, in addition to the relief recommended by the Panel, provides the
applicant with full and fitting relief.  In view of the foregoing, I direct
that the records be corrected as set forth in the attached directive.








                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency






AFBCMR BC-1996-02683


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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.  The nonjudicial punishment under the provision of Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice, initiated on 13 February 1996 and imposed
on 14 March 1996, and any and all references thereto, be, and hereby are,
declared void and expunged from his records, and all rights, privileges and
property of which he may have been deprived be restored.

      b.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B,
rendered for the period 1 August 1995 through 24 September 1996, be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      c.  He was not discharged from all appointments on 6 June 1997, but
was continued on active duty and was ordered Permanent Change of Station
(PCS) to his home of record (home of selection) pending further orders.

      d.  An Air Force Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, be prepared
and inserted in the record in its proper sequence indicating that no
performance report is available for the period when the member was not
serving on active duty and containing the statement, “Report for this
period not available for administrative reasons which were not the fault of
the member.”

      e.  He was selected for promotion to the grade of major by the
Calendar Year 1997C Major Central Selection Board; and, action be initiated
to obtain Senate confirmation.

      f.  Upon Senate confirmation, he be awarded an appropriate promotion
effective date and date of rank.

      g.  If he is considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel prior to receiving a minimum of two Officer Performance
Reports, with at least 250 days of supervision in the grade of major, his
nonselection(s) be, and hereby are, set aside.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency