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

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03562-2
                                       INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXX                         HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request  for  reconsideration,  he  requests  his  P0500A
promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect a  $166  million
program versus an $80 million program; his  completion  of  the  USAF  F-15E
Instructor   Upgrade   Course   be   documented   on   an   AF   Form   475,
Education/Training  Report,  versus  AF  Form  77,  Supplemental  Evaluation
Sheet; and his officer performance report (OPR) for the period 3 May 1998  -
2 May 1999, be corrected to include  his  rater’s  intended  senior  service
school (SSS) recommendation; and he be considered  by  a  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system (MilPDS), the  applicant  is
a rated officer who was appointed a Second Lieutenant, Reserve  of  the  Air
Force on 11 May 1985, and was voluntarily ordered to  extended  active  duty
on 8 August 1985.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force  on  1  July
1993 and was progressively promoted to the grade of Major (0-4) with a  date
of rank of 1 April 1997.

The applicant has two non-selections to the grade of Lt  Col  by  the  CY00A
(28 Nov 00) (P0500A) and the CY01B (5 Nov 01)  (P0501B)  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Boards.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings  and
training reports commencing with the report closing 30 October 1992:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      30 Oct 92                         Meets Standards (MS)
       9 Jun 93                                MS
       9 Jun 94                                MS
      14 Oct 94                                MS
*      5 Jan 95                         Supplemental Evaluation Sheet
      31 Jul 95                                MS
      15 Jun 96                                MS
      15 Jun 97 (Major)                        MS
       2 May 98                                MS
*      2 May 99                                MS
       2 May 00                                MS
      29 Jun 01                                MS
      20 Feb 02                         Training Report (TR)
      19 Jul 02                                MS

* Contested reports.

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) considered  and  disapproved  the
applicant’s request to substitute corrected copies of his OPR closing out  2
May 1999, his TR closing 5 January 1995, and the P0500A PRF.  The ERAB  also
did not approve the applicant’s request that his records  meet  an  SSB  for
promotion consideration.  The applicant’s MPF was notified of the  above  on
13 September 2002.

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the  Board  on  28  May  2003.
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding  the  rationale
for the earlier decision by the Board, see Exhibit G.

The applicant submitted an undated request for  reconsideration,  contending
that there may have been  a  misrepresentation  of  his  rater’s  supporting
letter in his previous appeal.  Therefore, he has  submitted  an  additional
supporting letter from his rater.   In  addition,  he  forwards  a  personal
statement and additional letters of support not  previously  submitted  with
his initial request.  The applicant’s submission, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In earlier findings,  the  Board  determined  that  there  was  insufficient
evidence to warrant correcting the  applicant’s  PRF  prepared  for  the  CY
2000A  central  lieutenant   colonel   selection   board,   adding   a   PME
recommendation  to  his  OPR   closing   2   May   1999,   substituting   an
Education/Training Report in place of a  Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet  to
document  his  completion  of  a  90-day  upgrade   training   course,   and
consideration by  an  SSB  for  the  CY  2000A  central  lieutenant  colonel
selection board.  The  Board  majority  determined  there  was  insufficient
evidence to warrant changing the dollar figure cited in Section III, Item  2
of the contested PRF or to add an SSS recommendation to his  OPR  closing  2
May 1999.  By unanimous vote, Board does  not  find  the  evidence  provided
sufficiently compelling to  substitute  an  Education/  Training  Report  in
place of a Supplemental Evaluation Sheet to document his completion of a 90-
day upgrade training course.

      a.  The applicant continues to assert that his completion of the  USAF
F-15E Instructor Upgrade Course upgrade should have been  documented  on  an
AF Form 475 rather than an AF Form 77.  The  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility has indicated that the AF Form 77 was prepared in  accordance
with the provisions of the governing regulation in effect  at  the  time  he
completed the training.  We note the applicant’s  submission  of  statements
by the 4 Mission Support Squadron, Chief, Customer Support claiming to  have
located an AF Form 475 for the same period  of  training  indicated  on  the
contested AF Form 77; however, neither their office nor the  applicant  have
been able to provide the AF 475 as evidence.  And, even if similar  training
performed by another officer during the same period of time were  documented
on an AF Form 475, this would not, in our  view,  require  approval  of  the
requested relief in the absence of evidence that  successfully  refutes  the
Air Force position that completion of such an AF Form 475  was  contrary  to
the provisions of the governing regulation in effect at that time.

      b.  The Board majority noted the additional statement  of  support  by
the rater of the applicant’s OPR closing 2 May  1999.   The  rater  explains
that his reason for leaving out the SSS recommendation  on  the  applicant’s
OPR was that he was unaware of the applicant’s eligibility for  SSS  at  the
time of writing the contested OPR.  In our previous review,  we  noted  that
there was inconsistent support for SSS on  the  reports  written  prior  and
subsequent to the  contested  report.   After  reviewing  the  rater’s  most
recent statement, the Board majority is still not persuaded that a  revision
of  the  previous  determination  concerning  this   issue   is   warranted,
especially since the  OPR  closed  out  in  1999,  the  selection  board  in
question convened in November 2000, the top report on  file  closed  out  in
May 2000 and that  report  did  contain  a  recommendation  for  SSS.   More
importantly, in the opinion of the Board  majority,  as  noted  by  the  Air
Force, the applicant chose not to seek correction of the 1999  report  until
after he was notified of his nonselection, which vitiates against a  finding
of error or injustice at the time the report was prepared.

      c.  As to the applicant’s request that  the  dollar  figure  cited  in
Section III, Item 2 of the contested PRF be changed, even though it  appears
that the value of this  program  represented  on  the  contested  report  is
erroneous, the Board majority  believes  this  error  was  harmless  to  the
applicant’s promotion opportunities since an officer’s value is  not  judged
by the numerical figure of the programs  they  manage,  alone,  but  by  the
information in the officer’s selection record pertaining to the  quality  of
his duty performance and the value his superiors placed on him as  a  member
of their team.  In the absence of what the  Board  majority  would  consider
more significant errors in the applicant’s record, they are of  the  opinion
that, for  all  intents  and  purposes,  this  error  was  harmless  to  the
applicant’s promotion opportunity and decline  to  favorably  consider  this
request.

      d.  Accordingly, in view of the above, the  Board  majority  finds  no
basis on which to base favorable consideration of  the  applicant’s  request
for consideration by an SSB for the  CY  2000A  central  lieutenant  colonel
selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
            Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member


Ms. Vestal and Mr. Russell voted to  deny  the  applicant’s  requests.   Ms.
Maust voted to grant the  applicant’s  requests  for  a  correction  to  the
dollar figure in Section II, Item 2 of the contested  PRF,  to  add  an  SSS
recommendation to the OPR for the period 3 May 1998 - 2 May  1999,  and  for
SSB consideration and to deny the remainder  of  the  applicant’s  requests,
but declined  to  submit  a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03562-2 was considered:

     Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dtd 8 Aug 03, w/Exhibits.
     Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Letter, undated, w/atchs




                                  PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                                   Panel Chair