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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00472
            INDEX CODE:  111.05
            COUNSEL:  Mr. Raymond J. Toney

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the  Calendar  Year
2000A  (CY00A)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  be  replaced  with  a
reaccomplished PRF.

2.  He be considered for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A lieutenant colonel board.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In a previous submission the applicant requested the  following  corrections
be made to his military records:

1.  His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing on 17 Feb 00, 17 Feb  01,
and 17 Feb 02, be removed from his records and replaced with  reaccomplished
OPRs closing 20 Oct 99, 20 Oct 00, and 20 Oct 01.

2.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the  Calendar  Year
2000A  (CY00A)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  be  replaced  with  a
reaccomplished PRF.

3.  He be considered for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection Board (SSB).

4.  His assignment history be changed to reflect the correct duty title.

Applicant contended that his time and performance  as  the  89th  Air  Wing,
Chief, Protocol Operations, was not adequately documented.  As a  result  of
data reflected in the Personnel Data System, his supervisor had 116 days  of
supervision resulting in a Letter of  Evaluation  (LOE)  that  was  prepared
before his departure.  The omission of a permanent  change-of-station  (PCS)
OPR had the effect of creating a questionable portrait of  his  performance.
In addition, he contended his PCS decoration was  not  fully  processed  for
over a year.  These two issues, an LOE and  no  PCS  decoration  along  with
errors in his duty history left his new commander with the  impression  that
his previous performance was less than stellar.

The Board recommended the contested  OPRs  be  declared  void,  the  reports
provided by the applicant, be inserted in their place, and any  subsequently
prepared reports be adjusted accordingly.  The Board did not agree with  the
applicant that his PRF should be replaced with a  corrected  PRF  and  noted
that his duty history has been corrected  in  the  Military  Personnel  Data
System.

The Board advised the applicant that their denial of his request to  replace
the  PRF  does  not  preclude  him  from  seeking  correction  through   the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) process.  For an  accounting  of  the
facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  requests  and  the
rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit G.

The applicant subsequently submitted an application to the ERAB.   Based  on
the fact that the ERAB is subordinate to the Board and no "substantial"  new
evidence was provided by the applicant,  the  ERAB  determined  the  Board's
ruling should stand and returned his request without action.

In  his  most  recent  submission,  counsel  contends  the  applicant  again
obtained  the  Management  Level  Review  (MLR)  President's   consent   and
requested correction of his record through  the  ERAB.   However,  the  ERAB
denied his request based on the fact that the Board had determined that  the
relief was not warranted.  The ERAB stated to the applicant that they  could
not understand why the Board did not recommend correcting his  record  based
on the evidence submitted.  In his first application he did not  allege  the
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) was not processed in a  timely  manner,  but
the processing of the MSM along with the erroneous OPR  and  incorrect  duty
history caused the issuance of a PRF  that  was  an  inaccurate  and  unjust
reflection of his military performance.  The processing of the MSM  was  not
delayed because the originating officer consulted Air Force regulations  and
decided he had 2 years within to act, but because  a  secretary  buried  the
award in her desk after it was initiated in an expeditious manner.   If  the
Board does not consider the delay in processing the MSM to be  a  source  of
an error or injustice, it must recognize that the erroneous  OPR  materially
altered his senior rater's perception of his performance history.

In support of his request, applicant provided his  counsel's  brief,  copies
of a previously submitted document, and memorandums provided by his  current
MLR President and the MLR Panel Recorder.   His  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After  again  reviewing  this  application  and  the   additional   evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that the requested change  to  the  contested
PRF is justified.  The statements  from  the  senior  rater  and  MLB  board
president were previously considered.  These statements, in our opinion,  do
not provide sufficient justification as to why his  performance  during  the
period of the OPR inserted in records warrants a  change  to  the  contested
PRF.  The statement from his current MLR president is  noted;  however,  the
individual only states that he  defers  to  the  judgment  of  his  previous
senior  rater.   Therefore,  we  are  inclined  to  agree  with   the   ERAB
determination that the documentation submitted by the applicant provides  no
substantial new evidence.  Evidence has not been presented which would  lead
us to believe that the proposed changes were based on information  that  was
not  available  during  his  original  promotion   recommendation   process.
Further, the proposed PRF does not appear to correct any errors  or  include
any substantive changes.  In view of the above findings and in  the  absence
of more detailed statements from the applicant’s former rating chain, we  do
not believe that any additional corrections to his  records  are  warranted.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 21 Jan 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 10 Sep 03,
                with Exhibits.
      Exhibit H.  Counsel's Letter, dated 17 Dec 03, w/atchs.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair