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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2000-02455
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following actions be taken to correct his record:

1.  The  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  (SAF)  accept  his  resignation  of
commission effective 10 May 1991 and reappoint him to  the  same  grade  and
status (at time of aforementioned resignation) effective 1 June 1997.

2.  His considerations for promotion to the grade of major  for  the  Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001 (FY00 and  FY01)  Line  and  Nonline  Major’s  Selection
Boards be voided.

3.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of major starting with  FY02
Line and Nonline Major’s  Selection  Board  with  full  Officer  Performance
Report  (OPR)  impute  to  include  Air  Force  Academy  (AFA)  and  Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) OPRs.

4.  That his full and complete  corrected  records  be  sent  from  National
Personnel Record Center (NPRC) to Air Reserve Personnel  Center  (ARPC)  for
use in promotion/continuation board consideration.

5.  Recommissioning and Continuation be granted in advance to avoid  further
delays to Reserve participation.

6.  Reassignment to  the  same  position  and  status  at  DLA  at  time  of
separation.

7.  Back pay and  points  be  awarded  from  January  2001  to  the  present
(including 4 drill periods per month, 48 additional Inactive  Duty  Training
(IDT) points and two weeks Annual Training  (AT)  per  year);  and  finally,
that he be awarded pay and points for duty performed  9 through  10  January
2001.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 Feb 01, the Board considered  and  partially  granted  the  applicant's
request that he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for  the
FY00 and FY01 Reserve of the Air Force  Line  and  Nonline  Major  Selection
Boards, that he be continued in a Reserve program until the SSB decision  is
made, and that his  Total  Federal  Commissioned  Service  Date  (TFCSD)  be
adjusted.  The Air Force evaluation stated that there were  some  errors  in
the applicant's record  as  it  appeared  before  the  selection  boards  in
question and recommended to the  Board  that  corrections  be  made  to  his
Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs), he receive SSB consideration for  the  FY00
and FY01 boards, and if not selected by either board, he be  considered  for
continuation by Special Review Board (SRB).  If  the  Board  disagreed  with
their  recommendation  the  evaluator  stated  that  his  record  should  be
corrected to show that  he  resigned  his  commission  on  10  May  91,  his
assignment to the ISLRS be revoked, correct his record to show that  he  was
recommissioned effective 1 Jun 97, adjust his TFCSD to  5  Feb  87  and  his
date of rank to 5 Feb 94, and award  him  SSB  consideration  for  the  FY01
selection board.  The Board concurred with the  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force evaluator and recommended that he receive SSB  consideration  for  the
FY00 and FY01 boards, and if not selected by either board, he be  considered
for continuation by SRB.  For an accounting of the facts  and  circumstances
of the applicant's appeal and  the  Board's  decision,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit D.

The applicant was not selected for promotion by the SSBs  but  was  selected
for continuation by the SRB.  On 15  Jun  02,  the  Board  reconsidered  his
application and recommended that his records be corrected accordingly.   For
an accounting of the facts and circumstances and the Board's  decision,  see
the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.

In his most recent submission, the applicant contends that the  actions  the
AFBCMR recommended were not carried out.  His records that  appeared  before
the SSBs were not correct.  He contends that his records were not  requested
and therefore not sent to ARPC from NPRC as required by AFIs 36-2608 and 36-
2504, which require board members to have access to  complete  and  accurate
records.  Therefore, the SSBs did not have access  to  material  information
that should have been available to them.

In support of his appeal the applicant has provided  a  personal  statement,
statement   from   ARPC/CV,   documentation   associated   with   his    SSB
consideration, extract from AFI 36-2504, his resume, letters of  support,  a
course completion certificate, his OPR closing 24  Feb  00,  his  Air  Force
Achievement Medal (AFAM), and documentation  associated  with  his  previous
AFBCMR case.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial.  DPB  states  the  applicant  requested  similar
relief in his previous application and cites the evaluation of his  previous
application, which included two options for the Board to  consider  at  that
time: 1.  To correct the applicant’s erroneous and  missing  information  in
his OSR, grant him additional promotion  opportunities  via  FY00  and  FY02
SSBs, and, if not selected by either, to  be  considered  for  continuation.
2.  Correct applicant’s record to show he resigned on 10 May 1991, and  that
he was  recommissioned  effective  June  1997.   Adjust  his  total  federal
commissioned service date (TFCSD) and date of rank (DOR) to  enable  him  to
meet the FY02 Line and Nonline Major’s  Selection  Board,  with  continuance
offered if not selected.  The AFBCMR granted the relief recommended in  item
1 above only.  All corrections were made  and  he  was  considered  and  not
selected for promotion by the FY00  and  FY01  boards.   Due  to  additional
information he provided, he was again considered by SSB for the  FY01  board
and was again not selected.  The AFBCMR considered his original  application
and recommended the relief that was  in  the  best  interests  of  both  the
applicant and the Air Force.  He provided no new  information  to  affect  a
change in the original advisory; he is simply asking that the  other  option
provided  in  the  original  evaluation  be  afforded  him  now.   The   DPB
evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that DPB  did  not  address  most  items  itemized  in  his
request.  The partial relief recommended by the Board was  not  followed  as
directed.  He asked the Inspector General to investigate/review  the  merits
of  his  situation.   His  research  revealed  that  his  records  were  not
requested by NRPC as required.  Based on the IG's recommendation  the  board
can still provide him full and  equitable  relief  by  granting  DPBs  other
solution.   In  an  amendment  to  his  rebuttal,  applicant   states   that
communication problems between the  MilPDS  system  and  the  PRISM  system,
which produces the selection brief, created  the  following  errors  on  his
brief:  His Flying Data should have reflected"4J,"  his  Academic  Education
Status  should  reflect  BAC  Aeronautical  Engineering  from   Embry-Riddle
University and should have been entered as "EHV," his AFAM should have  been
shown, his Professional Military Education does not reflect  the  Government
Flight Representative course, and his  Participation  Summary/History  total
should reflect 75, not 60.

In support of his appeal the applicant  has  provided  personal  statements,
email communications,  documents  extracted  from  his  OSB,  personal  data
system printouts, and additional copies of documents  previously  submitted.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB states that the points made by the applicant  have  been  addressed
with him via numerous communiqués with their office.  ARPC  was  in  control
of his paper Officer Selection Record (OSR) prior to the  three  SSBs.   The
remainder of his Master Personnel Records was available  to  the  board  via
ARMS.  There was no reason to request any records  from  NRPC.   MilPDS  was
not used by the Air Force until 2001; his promotion boards in question  were
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Therefore MilPDS had  no  impact  on  the  data
presented to the promotion boards.  The data used by the  SSBs  was  derived
from the previous boards and was manually  re-created  for  presentation  to
the SSBs.  The applicant contented that his  flying  status  should  reflect
his "Govt Flight Rep" position and he wanted his credit for flying  civilian
aircraft on his OSB.  His flying status was suspended when he  left  his  C-
130 pilot position.  Civilian flying  information  cannot  be  used  in  his
military record presented to the  board.   He  was  unable  to  provide  any
documentation to support a change in his flying status or flight hours.   He
provided in his request a copy of an Aeronautical  Order  dated  29 Jun  00,
effective 29 Feb 00.  The order qualifies him to  occupy  a  rated  position
that does not require flight time.  He was not flying and not  qualified  to
fly for the Air Force.  He asked that his Primary Air Force  Specialty  Code
(PAFSC) be changed to reflect "Govt Flight Rep."  There is no code  or  AFSC
that reflects such.  His OSB reflects his bachelor's degree but the  degree-
granting agency is listed as unknown.  He was  advised  that  he  needed  to
provide a copy of his transcript to AFIT  for  verification  and  corrective
action.  He provided the input code  for  the  University,  which  does  not
solve the problem.  He has not provided the needed information to  AFIT  for
verification.  He stated he was awarded an AFAM between 1997 and 1999.   The
citation he provided clearly shows the decoration was  signed  effective  18
Aug 00 and the order published 30 Aug 00.  If a decoration  is  not  awarded
prior to a selection board, it is not eligible  for  consideration  by  that
board.  The decoration was effective five months after the March 2000  board
convened or the SSBs for that board.  The Government  Flight  Representative
class that he completed does  not  fall  in  the  category  of  Professional
Military  Education.   His  Participation  History  does  appear   to   have
incorrect retirement points.  It should show 75 vice the 60 points.  He  did
have a satisfactory year of service; however, he did  not  have  any  active
duty participation.  At no time did he provide documentation or explain  the
information had been updated.  Without information from  the  applicant,  no
changes will be made to his OSB.  The ARPC/IG suggested solution is  derived
from the original advisory.  Two solutions were originally  offered  to  the
Board and the Board already granted relief and elected  not  to  choose  the
second option.

Everything he asked for was covered  in  conversations  with  him.   It  was
clearly explained what was and was not permitted  in  his  selection  folder
and on his OSB.  It was suggested that  he  write  a  letter  to  the  board
President if he felt he needed to communicate information.  For two  of  the
SSBs, he wrote letters  to  the  board.   He  did  not  present  the  entire
picture, or a true picture  in  his  correspondence  with  his  Senator,  or
previously to the AFBCMR.  He states in his letter to the  Senator  that  he
flew  missions  into/out  of  Kuwait  in  support  of  the  Iraq  war.    He
voluntarily  contributed  to  Command   Post   operations.    Command   post
operations are ground operations.  There is no documentation in  his  record
to show that he flew any missions in support of the Gulf War.

His selection record does not indicate  a  strong  Air  Force  career.   The
relative weakness in his performance reports  was  contributing  factors  in
his nonselection for promotion.  The selection board members  evaluated  his
record and found it was not strong enough for him to perform  in  the  grade
of major.  Five separate and independent sets  of  selection  board  members
felt he was not fully qualified to serve in the next higher grade.

The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that AFIT personnel have stated that the  computer  program
has deleted him from the database and they have no ability  to  reload  them
with correct information.   Numerous  "E"  members  were  in  flying  status
between 1997 and 2000.  Comments on the backside of  his  OPRs  recommending
him for future PME schools and indicating his potential for  promotion.   It
is his  understanding  that  his  initial  two  nonselections  were  removed
because of errors so in reality  he  has  only  met  two  selection  boards.
DPB's statement affirms that the SSBs were  either  tainted  or  fully  made
aware that he was previously not selected.   What  DPB  has  shown  is  that
there is a predetermined bias in preparing  his  selection  folder  with  no
guarantee for bias.  The fairest solution would be to place him  within  his
peer group with continuation and provide his promotion  consideration.   His
complete submission is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After a thorough review of the additional documentation provided in  support
of his appeal, we are  not  persuaded  that  further  corrective  action  is
warranted.  Evidence has not been provided which would lead  us  to  believe
that his selection record was  substantially  inaccurate  when  it  met  the
selection boards  in  question.   Further,  we  are  not  persuaded  by  the
evidence presented that there  were  any  errors  or  improprieties  in  his
promotion  consideration  process;  or,  that  he  has   been   denied   the
opportunity to compete for promotion on a fair  and  equitable  basis.   His
assertions are duly noted; however, in our opinion, the Air Force office  of
primary responsibility has adequately addressed his contentions and  we  are
in  agreement  with  their  recommendation.   Therefore,  we   adopt   their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  In the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting  the  additional
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-BC-
2000-02455 in Executive Session on 30 Oct 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Olga L. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit D.  Record of Proceedings, dated 9 Feb 01.
    Exhibit E.  Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated 15 Jun 02.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant's Submission, dated 11 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 23 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 8 Sep 03.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 03.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Oct 03, w/atchs.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair