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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-03550
                                 BC-1999-02039

            COUNSEL:  GARY R. MYERS

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be directly promoted to the grade of major.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 March 1999, the Board considered applicant’s request that the  Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 30 January 1997  and  18  June  1997,  be
removed from her records and she be considered by a Special Selection  Board
(SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Major Selection Board.  The  Board
found sufficient evidence that the OPR closing 18  June  1997,  was  not  an
accurate  assessment  of  her  performance.   However,   the   Board   found
insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant removing  the  OPR
closing 30 January 1997, and recommended  denial  of  this  portion  of  her
application.   The  Director,  Air  Force  Review  Boards   Agency   (AFRBA)
determined that, in addition to the relief recommended  by  the  Board,  the
OPR closing 30 January 1997, should be removed from  her  records.   For  an
accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the  application,  and
the rationale of the earlier  decisions  by  the  Director,  AFRBA  and  the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings (BC-1998-03550) at Exhibit A.

On 24 February 2000, the Board considered her  request  that  the  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY98B Major  Selection  Board  be
upgraded to “Definitely Promote (DP).”  The Board found sufficient  evidence
of an error or injustice to warrant upgrading the PRF.   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 (BC-1999-02039) at Exhibit B.





In a letter, dated 27 January 2003, she requests  direct  promotion  to  the
grade of major, contending that the OPR closing 30 January 1997,  was  still
in her records when she was considered for promotion  by  the  SSB  for  the
CY98B Major Selection Board, and that since the SSB system is arbitrary  and
capricious, she should be directly promoted to  the  grade  of  major.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPB recommends the application be denied and  states,  in  part,  that
the applicant was provided fair and proper consideration  for  promotion  by
the CY98B Board.  While the applicant contends that she was provided a  copy
of her “as met” record that met the SSB and the 30 January 1997, OPR was  in
the record, she was in fact provided a copy of her “as met” record that  met
the CY02A Board, in response to her request.  Unfortunately, when a copy  of
the documents was retrieved from the Automated Records  Maintenance  Systems
(ARMS), a copy of the OPR closing 30 January 1997, was generated.

The receipt of a DP PRF was never meant to  be  perceived  as  an  automatic
promotion.  Since 1988, there have been more boards where  there  have  been
some DP nonselects than boards with a 100% DP select  rate.   At  any  given
time a given review group may not  have  the  highest  quality  of  officers
meeting a promotion board; however, they are guaranteed  an  opportunity  to
compete for a DP PRF.  As such, an officer receiving a DP PRF may  not  have
a truly competitive record when meeting  the  selection  board  and  is  not
selected.   The  lower  selection  rate  from  supplemental  boards  is  not
evidence that DP’s are tracked  differently;  rather,  the  quality  of  the
record as viewed against the benchmarks leads to the lower selection rate.

AFPC/DPPB evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the AFBCMR  considers  direct  promotion  only  in  the  most  extraordinary
circumstances where SSB consideration is  totally  unworkable.   Her  record
does not warrant direct promotion or further SSB consideration.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be  denied  and  states,  in  part,  that
there is insufficient evidence to directly  promote  applicant  through  the
correction of records process, and there is no material error  or  injustice
which would warrant further relief.



The same arguments were offered in a recent federal  lawsuit  and  rejected.
The  Court  determined  the  Air  Force’s  procedures  for  conducting  SSBs
constitute a permissible interpretation of the statute and  a  proper  means
to  carry  out  the  statutory  requirements.   In  particular,  the   Court
determined the methodology used by the  Air  Force  in  selecting  benchmark
records and the scoring requirements were all proper under both statute  and
Air  Force  regulations.   An  additional  argument  that  statistical  data
suggested unfairness on the part of the SSBs, particularly with  respect  to
the number of officers with DPs promoted by SSBs versus the number  selected
at central selection boards was considered; however,  the  Court  determined
that the statistical data was not conclusive evidence that the  Air  Force’s
SSB procedure failed to make a “reasonable  determination”  of  whether  the
member would have been selected by the original selection board.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant’s counsel states, in part, that  AFPC/DPPB’s  conclusion  that
individuals receiving corrected DPs have lesser records than those  who  got
them competitively is complete nonsense and demonstrates the bias.  When  an
applicant is the only DP file in the pool, to include  the  benchmark  pool,
there is  no  doubt  which  record  is  being  reconsidered  for  promotion.
Statistics demonstrate that the DP is held to a  higher  standard  than  are
competitive DPs.  Adding a second DP to the mix would  improve  the  SSB  DP
selection rate because it would mask which file was being reconsidered.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  directly  promoting  the
applicant to the grade of major through the correction of  records  process.
The applicant has  received  full  and  fitting  relief  for  the  error  or
injustice she suffered.  Two OPRs were removed from  her  records,  her  PRF
was upgraded to “DP,” and she was considered for promotion to the  grade  of
major by an SSB.   The  applicant’s  counsel  contends  the  SSB  system  is
arbitrary and capricious; however, this contention is more  than  adequately
addressed by the Hq AFPC Staff Judge Advocate.  Further, we believe, as  the
Board did in her initial application, that her consideration  for  promotion
by a duly constituted SSB was the most  appropriate  venue  to  correct  the
error or injustice it was determined she had suffered.  Counsel also  opines
that since the applicant was the only individual considered by the SSB  with
a “DP” recommendation, her  record  was  flagged  as  the  corrected  record
receiving supplemental consideration.  However, the U.S.  Court  of  Federal
Claims determined the procedures utilized by the  Air  Force  in  conducting
SSBs constitute a permissible interpretation of the  statute  and  a  proper
means to carry out the statutory requirements.   In  particular,  the  Court
determined the methodology used by the  Air  Force  in  selecting  benchmark
records and  the  scoring  requirements  were  all  proper  under  both  the
statute, Title 10, United States Code, Section 628, and the  applicable  Air
Force regulation, AFI 36-2501, paragraph 6.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
evidence that she was denied fair and equitable consideration  by  the  SSB,
we find no basis upon which to  recommend  favorable  consideration  of  the
requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Numbers  BC-1998-03550
and BC-1999-02039 in  Executive  Session  on  4  February  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Mary Johnson, Member
                       Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  Record of Proceedings, 98-03550, dated 1 Jul 99,
                        w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Record of Proceedings, 99-02039, dated 23 May 00,
                  w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Counsel, dated 27 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 18 Jun 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Sep 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 23 Sep 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 7 Nov 03.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair






AFBCMR
1535 Command Dr, EE Wing, 3rd Flr
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002



Dear Applicant

      After careful consideration of your request for reconsideration of
your applications for correction of military records, AFBCMR Docket Numbers
BC-1998-03550 and BC-1999-02039, the Board determined there was
insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
Accordingly, the Board denied your applications.

      This decision does not preclude an additional request for
reconsideration, but such a request must be accompanied by newly discovered
relevant evidence that was not available at the time of your original
application.  Absent such additional evidence, further consideration of
your application is not possible.

      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




                 ROSE M. KIRKPATRICK
                 Chief Examiner
                 Air Force Board for Correction
                 of Military Records


Attachment
Addendum to Record of Board Proceedings