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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-00530

            COUNSEL:  THE AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 23 Aug 94
through 15 Jul 95 be declared void and removed from his records;  and,
any and all actions as a result of the OPR be invalidated such as:

      a.  His OPR rendered for the period 9 Jul 93  through  22 Aug 94
be declared void and removed from his records.

       b.  His  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  prepared   for
consideration  by  the  Calendar  Year  1996A  (CY96A)  Central  Major
Selection Board be declared void and removed from his records.

      c.  His PRF prepared for  consideration  by  the  CY97C  Central
Major Selection Board be declared void and removed from his records.

      d.  He be reinstated to active  duty  as  of  the  date  of  his
separation.

      e.  He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration  for
promotion to the grade of major.

      f.  He receive back pay, benefits, and credit toward  retirement
for all the active duty time he would have served.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On  14  Aug  02,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  an  application
pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested  that  his  Officer
Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 9 Jul 93  through  22
Aug 94 be declared void and removed from his records; his OPR rendered
for the period 23 Aug 94 through  15  Jul  95  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records;  his  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)
prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1996A (CY96A)  Central
Major Selection Board be declared void and removed from  his  records;
his PRF prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1997C  (CY97C)
Central Major Selection Board be declared void and  removed  from  his
records; he be provided Special Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration
for promotion to the grade of major in-the-primary zone;  if  selected
for promotion to major, he be reinstated to active duty as of the date
of his separation (28 Feb 98), and his promotion be  effective  as  of
the date it would have been effective had  he  been  promoted  in-the-
primary zone; he receive back pay and allowances in the grade of major
from the date of his promotion to the date of  his  reinstatement;  he
receive time in grade for pay, promotion, and retirement purposes from
the date of his promotion  to  the  date  of  his  reinstatement;  all
evidence of a Naval Service Flying Evaluation Board (FENAB), dated  27
Jul 94, be expunged  from  his  records;  and,  if  not  selected  for
promotion by an SSB, he be selectively continued as  a  pilot  in  the
rank of captain from the date of his separation with all back pay  and
allowances and credit for  time  in  grade  for  pay,  promotion,  and
retirement purposes.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings  is
at Exhibit Q (with Exhibits A through P).

On 13 May 03, the applicant's counsel requested reconsideration of the
original  application,  in  particular,  the  portion  of  the  appeal
pertaining to the OPR closing 15 Jul 95.  Counsel indicated  that  the
applicant did not receive equitable consideration  in  the  evaluation
process, which has been verified by the Air Force advisor of the  OPR.
He also indicated that the OPR served as an impediment to  his  career
advancement.  He further stated that the  applicant  did  not  receive
feedback during his evaluation period, which was a  required  part  of
the Air Force OPR process, because of the intrinsic nature of a  joint
Naval-Air Force flight training alignment  structure  at  the  Whiting
Naval Air Station.

In support of the appeal,  counsel  submitted  a  statement  from  the
former Air Force advisor on the 15 Jul 95 OPR, and two statements from
the applicant.

Counsel's complete submission, with attachments, which is  at  Exhibit
R.

Applicant  provided  subsequent  statements,  which  are  attached  at
Exhibits S and T.

Applicant provided  another  statement,  with  attachments,  which  is
attached at Exhibit V.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action  regarding  the  applicant’s
requests that his OPR rendered for the period 9 Jul 93 through 22  Aug
94 be declared void and removed from his records; his OPR rendered for
the period 23 Aug 94 through 15 Jul 95 be declared  void  and  removed
from his records; his PRF prepared  for  consideration  by  the  CY96A
board be declared void and removed from his records; his PRF  prepared
for consideration by the CY97C board be declared void and removed from
his records; he be provided SSB consideration  for  promotion  to  the
grade of major in-the-primary  zone;  if  selected  for  promotion  to
major, he be  reinstated  to  active  duty  as  of  the  date  of  his
separation (28 Feb 98), and his promotion be effective as of the  date
it would have been effective had he been promoted in-the-primary zone;
he receive back pay and allowances in the grade of major from the date
of his promotion to the date of his reinstatement; he receive time  in
grade for pay, promotion, and retirement purposes from the date of his
promotion to the date of his  reinstatement;  all  evidence  of  Naval
FENAB investigation be expunged from his records; and, if not selected
for promotion by an SSB, he be selectively continued as a pilot in the
rank of captain from the date of his separation with all back pay  and
allowances and credit for  time  in  grade  for  pay,  promotion,  and
retirement purposes.

2.  He  submitted  a  request  for  reconsideration  of  his   appeal,
requesting that his OPR closing 15 Jul 95 be voided; he be  reinstated
to active duty as of the date of  his  separation;  he  be  given  SSB
consideration for promotion to  the  grade  of  major;  and,  that  he
receive back pay, benefits, and credit toward retirement for  all  the
active duty time he would have served.  He also amended  his  requests
to include removal of his OPR closing 22 Aug 94,  and  his  CY96A  and
CY97C PRFs.

3.  The applicant’s most recent submission has  been  reviewed  and  a
majority of the Board finds  the  evidence  provided  insufficient  to
warrant a reversal of the Board’s previous determination in this case.
 The Board majority noted  that  the  relevant  evidence  provided  in
support of his appeal was a statement from the Air  Force  advisor  of
the OPR closing 15 Jul 95, who now supports removal of  the  contested
report.  The majority took note of his comments he was  not  aware  of
the full breadth of the facts and circumstances surrounding this  case
until recently, and, that had he  been  so  apprised,  he  would  have
weighed in earlier with his assessment.  However, the majority is  not
persuaded the contested report was not an accurate  depiction  of  the
applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered.  In  their  view,
no information has been provided which does not  appear  to  have  not
been previously available to the Air Force advisor.  In this  respect,
the majority noted the Air Force advisor’s comments that joint  flying
training was a new program and the  rated  officers  who  participated
were selected very  carefully.   He  also  stated  he  had  personally
visited the Navy base where joint flying training was being  conducted
and was aware there was considerable  concern  about  the  ability  of
naval officers to adequately prepare OPRs to Air Force standards.  The
majority also noted his comments about being adamant  about  the  need
for raters to provide performance feedback, yet he did  not  challenge
the lack of feedback on the applicant’s OPR.  Notwithstanding this,  a
rater’s failure to provide feedback  is  not  a  sufficient  basis  to
invalidate a report.  The majority finds it somewhat incredulous  that
a senior Air Force official  would  be  so  distracted  by  a  pending
reassignment and the changes that  were  being  implemented  with  the
advent of joint flying training, that he would not carefully  consider
a referral OPR, especially in the context of a new program where  OPRs
were an issue as was known by all parties, and properly discharge  his
responsibility.  In the majority’s view, the statement  from  the  Air
Force advisor represents his retrospective judgment  of  a  more  than
eight-year old OPR, which is an insufficient basis to find the  report
was inaccurate when originally prepared.  Therefore, in  view  of  the
above, and in the absence of clear-cut evidence  to  the  contrary,  a
majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the applicant’s request that his OPR closing 15 Jul 95 be  voided  and
removed from his records.  In view of their decision  with  regard  to
this matter, they  also  find  no  basis  to  favorably  consider  his
remaining requests.

4.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
1999-00530 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 03, 5 Jan 04, and 23 Feb 04,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny  the  request.   Mr. Lowas
voted to grant the applicant’s request that his OPR closing 15 Jul  95
be voided and removed  from  his  records  and  submitted  a  minority
report.

The following additional documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-1999-00530 was considered:

    Exhibit Q.  Record of Proceedings, dated 11 Sep 02,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit R.  Letter, counsel, dated 13 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit S.  Letter, applicant, dated 15 Jun 03.
    Exhibit T.  Letter, applicant, dated 26 Oct 03.
    Exhibit U.  Minority Report, dated 20 Jan 04.
    Exhibit V.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 Feb 04, w/atchs.




                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                   Panel Chair



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

SUBJECT:  Minority Report, XXXXXX, XXXXXX,
          AFBCMR BC-1999-00530

      I am not in agreement with the majority of the Board’s
recommendation to deny the applicant’s request that his Officer
Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 23 Aug 94 through 15
Jul 95 be voided and removed from his records.

      During the Board’s initial consideration of the applicant’s
request, it noted that the applicant’s rating chain included Naval
personnel and was concerned about the possibility the applicant may
have been rated based on Navy rather than Air Force standards because
of a lack of familiarity with rating an Air Force officer.  However,
the Board’s concerns were abated since the contested OPR was reviewed
by an Air Force advisor.

      The applicant has provided a statement from the Air Force
advisor of the contested report, who now supports removal of the OPR.
He indicates that he was not aware of the full breadth of the facts
and circumstances surrounding this case until recently.  Had he been,
he would have weighed in earlier with his assessment.  However, after
having been so apprised, he does not believe that the applicant’s
referral OPR was adequately handled.  He reached this conclusion based
on the fact that the joint flying training was a new program and the
rated officers who were selected to participate in the initial cadre
were selected very carefully.  He had personally visited the Navy base
where joint flying training was being conducted and was aware that
there was considerable concern about the ability of naval officers to
adequately prepare OPRs to Air Force standards.  He noted that on the
referral report there was no indication that the applicant received
performance feedback during the rating period.  In normal
circumstances, he was adamant about the need for raters to provide
such feedback.  However, he cannot recall why he would not have
challenged the applicant’s OPR in that regard, particularly in his
case where substandard performance was alleged.

      The Air Force advisor also indicates that he was aware that the
support structure and alignment for Air Force personnel serving with
the Navy was inadequate.

      While he cannot recall what advice he may have received from his
staff regarding the applicant’s performance, the Air Force advisor
states that it likely his pending short-notice reassignment and the
changes that were being implemented with the advent of joint flying
training distracted the attention he would normally have placed on
this specific case.  Nevertheless, he should have stopped the process
and had the situation thoroughly reviewed.  Although the applicant
acknowledged that he made some mistakes, it does not make sense that
an officer with an outstanding record and select assignment to a new
program would have his career ruined by systemic inadequacies.  In the
Air Force advisor’s view, the applicant was not well served by the
system, including himself, in the case of his referral OPR.

      In view of the foregoing, and having no basis to question the
integrity of this individual, I recommend that the applicant’s OPR
closing 15 Jul 95 be voided and removed from his records.




                                           ALBERT F. LOWAS
                                               Panel Chair



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

FROM: SAF/MRB
SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of XXXXXX, XXXXXX

      I have carefully considered the rationale of the Board majority;
however, in addition to agreeing with the minority member that the
applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period
23 August 1994 through 15 July 1995 should be declared void, removed
from his records, and he be provided promotion consideration by a
Special Selection Board, I also believe equity dictates the removal of
the two “Do Not Promote” Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs)
prepared for the Calendar Years 1996A and 1997C Central Major
Selection Boards, respectively.

      The statement from the Air Force advisor of the contested OPR
indicates that he would have intervened earlier with his assessment
had he been aware of the full breadth of the facts and circumstances
of the case.  The advisor indicates he knew there was concern about
the ability of naval officers to adequately prepare OPRs to Air Force
standards.  In addition, while he was normally adamant about the need
for raters to provide feedback, he cannot recall why he would not have
challenged the lack of feedback in the applicant’s case, especially
since substandard performance was alleged.  He concludes that because
of his own short-notice reassignment and changes being implemented
with the joint flying training, he was distracted and didn’t place the
attention he should have on this case.  He indicates he should have
stopped the process and had the situation thoroughly reviewed.
Although the advisor agrees the applicant made some mistakes, he
states it doesn’t make sense that the applicant, who had an
outstanding record and a select assignment to a new program, would
have his career ruined by systemic inadequacies.  I agree.  The
applicant should not be punished simply because the individual who
should have questioned the contested OPR did not pursue the reason for
the referral.  Furthermore, I fully agree with the Inspector General’s
findings that the strength of the referral OPR directly influenced the
two “Do Not Promote” PRFs the applicant subsequently received.
Therefore, with no reason to doubt the integrity of the Air Force
advisor’s statement, I am persuaded that any doubt should be resolved
in favor of the applicant.  Therefore, I direct that the OPR rendered
for the period 23 August 1994 through 15 July 1995, and the PRFs
prepared for the CY96A and CY97C Central Major Selection Boards be
voided, removed from his records, and the applicant be considered for
promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the
CY96A and CY97C Central Major Boards.

                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency






AFBCMR BC-1999-00530




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 XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

      a.         The Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form
707B, rendered for the period 23 August 1994 through 15 July 1995 be,
and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      b.         The Promotion Recommendation Forms, AF Forms 709,
prepared for consideration by the Calendar Years 1996A (CY96A) and
1997C (CY97C) Central Major Selection Boards, be, and hereby are,
declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the CY96A and
CY97C Central Major Boards.







            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency