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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00745
            INDEX CODES:  131.01, 131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of colonel; or, he again be given
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade
of  colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year  2001A  (CY01A)  Colonel  Central
Selection Board, and, the Board order  that  special  instructions  be
given to the members of the SSB that properly explain the  purpose  of
the  SSB  and  properly  characterize  a  “Definitely  Promote”   (DP)
recommendation as being equivalent to a  DP  at  a  central  promotion
board, and explain that it should be given the appropriate  weight  in
accordance with the law.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On  16  Jul  02,  the  Board  recommended  the   applicant’s   Officer
Performance Report (OPR) closing 15 Nov 00 be voided and replaced with
a reaccomplished OPR; his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared
for consideration by the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A)  Colonel  Central
Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF; and,
he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel  by  a  Special
Selection Board for the CY01A Colonel Central Selection Board and  for
any subsequent boards for which the OPR  closing  15  Nov  00,  was  a
matter of record.  The  Director,  Air  Force  Review  Boards  Agency,
accepted the recommendation of the Board on 12 Aug 02.  On 3  Dec  02,
the applicant was considered but  nonselected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel  by  an  SSB.   A complete  copy  of  the  Record  of
Proceedings, which contains the facts of this appeal and the rationale
for the earlier decision by the Board, is attached at Exhibit G.

Applicant requests reconsideration of his application.   Specifically,
he requests he be granted  another  SSB,  and  the  Board  order  that
special instructions be given to the members of the SSB that  properly
explain the purpose of the SSB and properly characterize a “Definitely
Promote” recommendation as being equivalent  to  a  DP  at  a  central
promotion board, and explain it should be given the appropriate weight
in accordance with the law.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

In response to an AFPC/JA memorandum that was provided to him for  his
review and comments, the applicant provided a  subsequent  submission,
which is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPB recommended denial indicating  that  a  central  tenant  for
selection for an Air Force promotion is the whole  person  concept  as
determined by an officer’s job  performance,  professional  qualities,
leadership, depth  and  breadth  of  experience,  job  responsibility,
academic and  professional  military  education  (PME),  and  specific
achievements.  This description of the whole person concept  has  been
utilized for many years and can be found in the Secretary of  the  Air
Force’s Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) given to a board of  officers.
The PRF and its recommendation is the  senior  rater’s  input  to  the
board concerning the officer’s job performance.  A selection board  is
not bound to promote an officer with a “DP” if  the  officer’s  record
does  not  warrant  the  promotion.   According   to   AFPC/DPPB,   an
alternative and a more likely explanation to the  applicant’s  outcome
when he was considered by an SSB in Dec 02 is not  that  an  injustice
was perpetrated upon him by the SSB, rather, in the board’s view,  his
record, as measured by their whole person concept and in comparison to
the  identified  benchmarks,  was  not  of  sufficient   quality   for
promotion.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit K.

AFPC/DPPPO indicated that after carefully evaluating the  evidence  in
this case and the AFPC/DPPB advisory, they  recommend  denial  of  the
applicant’s request for SSB consideration, as well as direct promotion
to the grade of colonel.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit L.

HQ USAF/JAA indicated, in  sum,  that  they  agree  with  the  AFPC/JA
opinion, dated 23 Sep 03, and its analysis of the  Haselrig  case  and
find it persuasive in the applicant’s case as well.  They also believe
the  AFPC/DPPB  advisory  is  well-written   and   offers   additional
information, analysis, and comment.  In  HQ  USAF/JAA’s  opinion,  the
applicant has failed to demonstrate the  existence  of  any  error  or
present facts and circumstances supporting an injustice.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  response
indicating again that there is no question the SSB  did  not  consider
his records, to include his PRF and DP  promotion  recommendation,  in
the same manner as  they  would  have  been  considered  at  the  CSB,
resulting in his nonselection for promotion to colonel.  In his  view,
this obvious injustice should be corrected by directly  promoting  him
to colonel or by granting him a second SSB and ordering the members of
the SSB be properly instructed with regard to the function of the  SSB
and how they should consider his PRF with a DP recommendation.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit O.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s complete  submission
was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However,
we did not  find  his  assertions  and  his  supporting  documentation
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale proffered by the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  No evidence has  been
presented which has shown to our satisfaction the  applicant  was  not
fairly and equitably considered for promotion to  colonel  by  a  duly
constituted SSB.  In view of the foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of
sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendations
of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis  for  our  decision
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we conclude no
compelling basis exists to recommend granting  the  relief  sought  in
this appeal.

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  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-
2002-00745 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Mr. James E. Short, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit G.  Memorandum for the Chief of Staff,
                dated 12 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Mar 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 Apr 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 4 Jun 04.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 Jul 04.
    Exhibit M.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 27 Aug 04.
    Exhibit N.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Sep 04.
    Exhibit O.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Sep 04.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair