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


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1996-10007
                                        INDEX CODE 131.01
                                  COUNSEL:  None

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the  Calendar  Year  1989A
(CY89A) Major Selection Board be declared void and  removed  from  his
records,  and  he  be   afforded   Special   Selection   Board   (SSB)
consideration for the CY89A promotion board.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant, a prior-enlisted member,
was a captain assigned to the 3420th Technical  Training  Group  (3420
TTG) at Lowry AFB, CO.

The applicant was considered but not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of major by the CY89A board, which convened on 4 Dec 89, and the
CY91A board, which convened on 8 Jul 91.  Both PRFs reflected  overall
recommendations of “Promote.”

As a result of his second nonselection, the applicant was  mandatorily
retired for maximum years of service in the grade of captain effective
1 May 92, after 20 years and 3 days of active service.

The applicant subsequently raised allegations  of  Officer  Evaluation
System  (OES)  irregularities  during  the  CY89A   promotion   cycle;
specifically, an improper mini-board  was  convened  and  professional
military  education  (PME)  and  advanced  academic   education   were
considered when making promotion recommendations.  He also alleged his
“Promote” recommendation for the CY91A PRF was an act of  reprisal  by
the commander  for  a  Congressional  complaint  the  applicant  filed
concerning promotion irregularities.   An  inquiry  officer  (IO)  was
appointed.

On 19 Sep 95, the applicant was provided a Summary Report  of  Inquiry
(ROI).  The IO concluded the senior rater did not convene a mini-board
in making his promotion recommendations during the CY89A cycle and the
commander did not convene a meeting to “rack and stack”  (prioritize).
Senior raters were allowed  to  obtain  information  from  subordinate
raters or others with knowledge of the  candidates’  performance  when
determining  recommendations,  which  was  used  in  conjunction  with
information in the record  of  performance.   The  applicant’s  senior
rater personally and independently  made  all  final  recommendations.
However, the IO found the senior rater inappropriately  used  PME  and
advanced academic education in making his  PRF  decisions  during  the
CY89A cycle, which violated AFR 36-10.  The IO did not find  that  the
“Promote” recommendation on the applicant’s CY91A PRF  constituted  an
act of reprisal for filing a congressional complaint.  A  reevaluation
of pertinent records by a designated senior rater would be conducted.

On 9 Aug 96, the Air Education and  Training  Command  Vice  Commander
(AETC/VC) notified the applicant that  the  review  of  the  promotion
recommendation process for the CY89A  Major  promotion  recommendation
cycle within the 3400 TRW had been  completed  and  the  original  PRF
rating and narrative had been  confirmed  to  be  valid.   [Examiner’s
Note:   A  number  of  officers  during  this  time  frame  had  their
performance records and PRFs reevaluated by independent senior  raters
and Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) presidents because of the
original senior raters’ inappropriate use of PME and advanced academic
education information.   Those  whose  PRF  narratives/recommendations
were amended/upgraded were given SSB consideration; others,  like  the
applicant, were informed that no change was warranted.]

In a 26 Aug 96 AFBCMR appeal, the applicant requested that he be given
SSB consideration for the CY89A selection board with  the  PRF  voided
from his record.  He contended the designated senior rater  failed  to
accurately assess the performance-based potential  in  his  record  of
performance.  On 10 Sep 97, the Board denied his request.

A copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP) is at Exhibit E.

On 15 Sep 97, the applicant requested  reconsideration  on  the  basis
that his 4 Nov 96 rebuttal, with additional evidence, was not received
by the AFBCMR Staff prior to the Board’s consideration  of  his  case.
On 8 Jan 98, the Board reconsidered the  applicant’s  case  and  again
denied his request.

A copy of the Addendum ROP (AROP) is at Exhibit G.

In  a  10  Feb  05  appeal,  the  applicant  requests  reconsideration
contending he would have been promoted if his squadron  commander  had
forwarded his supervisor’s definitely promote recommendation  and  the
wing commander had not considered illegal data.  The policy of seeking
a statement of support from one’s  senior  rater  is  flawed  if  that
person was responsible for one’s nonselection.  He provides, in  part,
two supporting statements pertaining to the relationship  between  the
group commander and the supervisor.  Also provided is a statement from
the senior rater for the CY91A PRF, who indicates she does not  recall
making the comment the applicant alleges she did.

The applicant’s resubmission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After a thorough review of the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s
latest submission, we remain  unpersuaded  the  CY89A  PRF  should  be
voided and he should be given  SSB  consideration.   The  Summary  ROI
concluded the senior rater did not convene a mini-board in making  his
promotion recommendations during the CY89A cycle and the commander did
not convene a meeting to “rack  and  stack”  eligibles;  however,  the
senior  rater  did  inappropriately  use  PME  and  advanced  academic
education in making his PRF decisions.  The  ROI  also  concluded  the
“Promote” recommendation on the applicant’s PRF  was  not  an  act  of
reprisal.   A  designated  senior   rater   reviewed   the   promotion
recommendation process for the CY89A cycle and confirmed the  original
PRF  rating  and  narrative  were  valid.   The   applicant’s   latest
submission still does not overcome the findings of  the  ROI  and  the
designated senior rater review.  The supporting statements were noted.
 However, we  are  unconvinced  the  allegedly  strained  relationship
between the group commander and the supervisor negatively affected the
PRF.  Further, the senior rater of the CY91A PRF  indicates  she  does
not recall the circumstances or comments as alleged by the  applicant.
The applicant has failed to establish he has been  the  victim  of  an
error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling  reason  to
overturn the previous two Board decisions denying the relief sought.

The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to  give  the
Board a clear understanding of the  issues  involved  and  a  personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not  have  materially
added to that understanding.  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 2 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Member
                  Ms. Jean Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit G.  Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated 18 Feb 98.
   Exhibit H.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 05, w/atchs.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair