FOURTH ADDENDUM TO


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  92-01286
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00


      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL: Chester H. Morgan, II


      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him for the  Calendar
Year 1991A (CY91A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be revised.

He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by special selection
board (SSB) for the CY91A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board with
the revised PRF.

______________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

Background on applicant’s case is contained  in  the  Third  Addendum  to
Record of Proceedings (Exhibit FFF).

Based on a statement from the applicant’s senior rater, submitted with  a
letter from the applicant dated 16  Oct  02,  the  Board  considered  the
applicant’s request for reconsideration on 30 May 03.  Applicant’s senior
rater indicated his error on the applicant’s PRF, definitely  recommended
him for promotion, and strongly supported the  applicant’s  consideration
for promotion by SSB.     The  Board  also  considered  three  additional
letters submitted by the applicant stressing his ability to help meet the
Air  Force’s  critical  need  for  scientists   and   engineers.    After
considering all of the evidence of record, the Board subsequently  denied
the applicant’s request.

In a letter to SAF/MRB, dated 15  Nov  03,  applicant  is  appealing  the
Board’s 30 May 03 decision.  In support of his request, he has provided a
new statement from his senior rater.  His senior rater seeks  to  address
the Board’s concerns over the statement he provided  in  support  of  the
applicant’s last appeal.  (Exhibit GGG).

______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request,  AFPC/DPPPE  evaluated  the  applicant’s
latest request and supporting new evidence.  They continue  to  recommend
denial of the applicant’s requests.  They note  that  the  applicant  has
provided additional support from the senior rater, but has  not  provided
support from the management level evaluation board president as  required
to change Section IV of the PRF.  They believe that  the  senior  rater’s
statement that he was unaware that he sent a negative signal to the Board
is a retrospective  view  some  12  years  later.   AFPC/DPPPE  finds  it
compelling that the senior  rater  indicates  in  his  latest  statement,
several times, “I honestly don’t recall…” or “ I simply don’t remember….”
 It also appears that the senior  rater’s  current  views  are  based  on
information from current boards.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit HHH.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel responded  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation.   Counsel
states that the advisory prepared by AFPC/DPPPE misstates law, fact,  and
the earlier opinion of the Board.  He also opines that  it  showcases  an
astonishing personal animus against  the  applicant,  which  impugns  its
objectivity.  Counsel addresses the following issues:

        a.  AFPC/DPPPE states that their current advisory is an  addendum
to their original advisory.  Counsel  states  that  the  applicant  never
received the original advisory, so was denied an opportunity to  respond.
[Examiner’s  Note:   AFPC/DPPPE  is  referring  to  advisories   provided
previously in the case, which the applicant has previously responded to.]

         b.  That  the  applicant  did  not  provide  support  from   the
management level evaluation board (MLEB) president as required to  change
Section IV of the  PRF.   Counsel  states  that  no  authority  for  this
requirement is cited and  that  this  brand  new  requirement  was  never
communicated to the applicant.  Counsel opines that it makes no sense  to
establish this requirement given the wide-ranging authority of the Board.

        c.  The senior rater seems to be basing  his  conclusion  on  the
applicant’s case of 12 years ago on information  from  current  promotion
boards.  Counsel states that this is not true and refers the Board  to  a
provided attachment, CY91  O-5  “Central  Selection  Board  Observations”
(hotwash), which he states was prepared as part of a common  practice  to
analyze what was then a new system.  Counsel points out problems  in  the
applicant’s  PRF  that  the  hotwash  addresses.   Counsel  states   that
statements by the applicant’s senior rater are “neither  speculative  nor
retrospective,” but are backed by a contemporaneous analysis of the CY91A
Board itself.

         d.  AFPC/DPPPE’s  statement   regarding   the   senior   rater’s
statements that he could not recall or did not remember  details  related
to  the  applicant’s  case.   Counsel  opines  that  the  senior  rater’s
admission attests to his credibility.  The important thing  is  that  the
senior rater remembers that he intended to communicate to  the  promotion
board his belief based  on  the  record  that  the  applicant  should  be
promoted.  Yet, the net effect of the  applicant’s  PRF  was  to  send  a
series of “demonstrably negative signals.”

        e.  How the senior rater would know what signal he  sent  to  the
board when he was not a member.  Counsel opines that, of course, a senior
rater would be expected to know what signal he sent to  the  board.   The
written affirmation of a promotion recommendation was understood to be  a
catastrophically negative signal in  the  aftermath  of  the  applicant’s
board, and that was a signal the applicant’s senior rater declares he did
not intend to send.

        f.  That a sizable gap in an officer’s record  was  not  uncommon
due to the possible  closeout  date  of  an  OPR.   Counsel  states  that
AFPC/DPPPE misses the point.  The applicant had three different reporting
officials in the nine-month hiatus between his last OPR and his promotion
board.  He then transferred to a new job and a new  command  without  any
knowledge or evidence of his  performance  there.   AFPC/DPPPE  fails  to
address the strong encouragement in Air Force regulations, then and  now,
to address these gaps with a letter of evaluation (LOE), even if  an  OPR
is neither appropriate nor allowed.

        g.  Addressed in a. above.

        h.  Counsel states  that  the  final  paragraph  of  AFPC/DPPPE’s
evaluation betrays hostility toward the applicant and his senior rater.

Counsel states that the applicant’s case comes down to the fact that  his
senior rater is either a liar or a manifest injustice  has  taken  place.
The applicant was selected  for  intermediate  service  school  (ISS)  in
residence, placing him in the top 20% of his contemporaries.  Nothing  in
his record until his PRF  contradicts  that  rating,  which  should  have
assured his promotion to lieutenant colonel.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit JJJ.

In a letter dated 20 May 04,  applicant  submitted  an  addendum  to  his
counsel’s response.  Applicant indicates that he wants to make  it  clear
that he is not asking for a “Definitely Promote”  recommendation  on  his
PRF.  He states that he is asking the Board for  two  basic  actions,  to
correct his PRF and to give him promotion consideration by SSB  with  the
corrected PRF.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit KKK.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After  reviewing  the  new  evidence  of  record,  including  counsel’s
rebuttal, we  still  do  not  find  sufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice to warrant granting the relief requested.  The central  issue
asserted by applicant and counsel is that the applicant is  the  victim
of an injustice because the PRF prepared on him for the  CY91A  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board was deficient in  conveying  to  the
board his suitability for promotion.  In that regard,  the  applicant’s
senior rater has submitted a letter of support  expressing  his  belief
that he caused the applicant an unintended injustice by  conveying  the
wrong message  to  the  promotion  board,  certifying  the  applicant’s
suitability for promotion, and also certifying his intent  to  get  the
applicant, as well as his other assigned  officers  meeting  the  CY91A
board, promoted.  The senior rater attributes his mistakes on  the  PRF
to the newness of  the  PRF  system  at  the  time  and  believes  that
subsequent knowledge he learned regarding what constitutes an effective
PRF justifies amending the applicant’s  PRF  and  considering  him  for
promotion by SSB.  While it appears that the senior rater is sincere in
his  view  that  he  unintentionally  hurt  the  applicant’s  promotion
chances, we continue to believe that the present day  analysis  of  the
applicant’s PRF is retrospective and relies  on  knowledge  that,  most
likely, none of the senior raters  who  prepared  PRFs  for  the  CY91A
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board were aware of at  the  time.
It would be interesting  to  know  how  the  other  officers  that  the
applicant’s senior rater prepared PRFs on fared during the CY91A Board.
 While the PRF system may have been in its infancy at the time  of  the
applicant’s board, the applicant has not provided  sufficient  evidence
to show that his senior rater was at any more of  a  disadvantage  than
any other required to prepare PRFs for the CY91A Board.  In  fact,  the
applicant’s senior rater seems to verify that  all  involved  with  the
system at that time suffered from an  apparent  lack  of  guidance  and
clarity on the preparation  of  PRFs.   We  do  not  believe  that  the
applicant has provided sufficient evidence that he is the victim of  an
injustice  when  compared  with  his  contemporaries   considered   for
promotion by the CY91A  promotion  board.   We  also  note  the  senior
rater’s opinion that the applicant also suffered an  injustice  because
he did not have a current OPR covering ten months of performance at his
new command.  We feel that this issue  has  been  adequately  addressed
during previous considerations of this case.   Finally,  we  note  that
applicant’s counsel feels that they have been placed at a  disadvantage
because they were not provided a copy of the original advisory  opinion
AFPC/DPPPE references in their addendum advisory.   We  note  that  the
advisory opinion referred to by AFPC/DPPPE is the one dated 13  Jan  94
prepared under the  office  symbol  AFMPC/DPMAEB.   The  applicant  was
previously provided this advisory during past  considerations  of  this
case.  Since this  is  a  request  for  reconsideration,  there  is  no
requirement to provide the documents again.  Therefore, in the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend
granting the 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 10 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit CCC.  Record of Proceedings, dated 6 Apr 93,
                 w/atchs.
    Exhibit DDD.  Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated
                 6 Aug 93, w/atchs.
    Exhibit EEE.  Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                 dated 4 May 95, w/atchs.
    Exhibit FFF.  Third Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                 dated 2 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit GGG.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit HHH.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 25 Mar 04.
    Exhibit III.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Apr 04.
    Exhibit JJJ.  Letter, Counsel, dated 19 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit KKK.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 May 04.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair