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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1994-03165

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  MR. GARY R. MYERS

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  DD  Form
214, be corrected to reflect intended service as Missile Launch  Officer  at
XXXXXX, through end of contract on 10  August  1996  (four  years  and  five
months of active service).

2.    His record of Student Progress Review Panel (SPRP) and all  subsequent
documents be removed from his records.

3.    He receive back pay and allowances from the date of his separation  to
the end of his contract.

4.    He be given an opportunity for a new  occupational  specialty  in  the
Air Force Reserve.

5.    He receive credit for time and grade for the period of contract  which
will be used for purposes of pay and promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 August 1995, the  Board  considered  applicant’s  request  that  he  be
reinstated on active duty  in  his  former  grade  with  all  back  pay  and
allowances and that he be given  the  opportunity  for  a  new  occupational
specialty.  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 N.

In  an  application,  dated  7  January   2004,   the   applicant   requests
reconsideration of his application and  provides  additional  documentation.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit O.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA recommends the application be  denied.   AFPC/JA  states,  in  part,
that  applicant  has  failed  to  meet  the  regulatory   requirements   for
reconsideration, he is  untimely,  and  he  has  failed  on  the  merits  to
establish any error or injustice warranting relief.  In this  respect,  they
note the following:

      a.    In their opinion, applicant’s new evidence is either not new  at
all, merely redundant or  cumulative  to  evidence  already  submitted,  not
relevant to proving the point for which it is offered, or it  is  not  newly
discovered in the sense that it was  available  at  the  time  the  original
application was submitted.  The embellishment of a  previous  argument  does
not constitute newly discovered relevant evidence not previously available.

      b.    Since applicant has filed eight  and  a  half  years  after  the
AFBCMR’s original decision, the request is untimely,  and  due  in  part  to
that delay, he has modified his requested relief  to  now  encompass  credit
for active duty never served, and associated pay and allowances.

      c.    Applicant has failed to establish that he has  been  the  victim
of an error or  injustice.   The  squadron  operating  instruction  did  not
provide nondiscretionary and mandatory  requirements,  but  rather  policies
and  procedures  for   implementing   certain   requirements.    Substandard
performance based on a deficient or defective attitude  would  constitute  a
non-training problem that would obviate any requirement for entry  into  the
Quality Enhancement Program  (QEP)  before  consideration  for  elimination.
Even if the attitude problem that formed the basis for his elimination  were
not considered a “non-training” problem, the governing  regulation  provided
the requisite authority for the actions taken.  The officers  in  charge  of
the training acted  within  their  authority.   The  decision  to  eliminate
applicant was based on his substandard attitude and substandard  performance
in the missile procedures  trainer.   Even  if  the  AFBCMR  were  to  grant
applicant’s request, they do not  recommend  the  AFBCMR  grant  credit  for
active duty service that was never performed.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant’s
counsel on 17 August 2004 for review and response within 30 days.   However,
as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by  applicant,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate
and adopt her rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  applicant  has
failed to establish that he has been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

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-1994-03165
in Executive Session on 5 October 2004, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                       Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit N.  Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Aug 95, w/atchs.
    Exhibit O.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit P.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 19 Jul 04.
    Exhibit Q.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Aug 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair