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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-00459
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Aug 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel  as  though
selected by the Calendar Year 1992B (CY92B) Lieutenant Colonel Central
Selection Board, with back pay, allowances, benefits,  and  adjustment
of his retirement pay and date.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 Feb 04, the Board considered the applicant’s request that he  be
directly promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  as  though
selected by the CY92B board, with back pay, allowances, benefits,  and
adjustment of his retired pay.   The  Board  denied  his  request  for
direct promotion.  However, the Board noted the decision of  the  U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Berkley that  the  special
instructions to the selection boards erroneously required differential
treatment of officers, based on their race and gender.  In view of the
court’s findings,  and  since  the  Air  Force  did  not  appeal  that
decision, the Board recommended  the  applicant  be  provided  Special
Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the  CY92B  and  CY93A  boards.
The Director, Air Force Review Boards  Agency,  accepted  the  Board’s
recommendation on 4 Mar 04.  A complete copy of the Memorandum for the
Chief of Staff, with attachments, is at Exhibit L.

By letter, dated 15  Dec  04,  the  applicant  again  requests  direct
promotion to lieutenant colonel.  In his most recent  submission,  the
applicant indicates he was notified of his nonselection for  promotion
to lieutenant colonel by SSBs for the CY92B and CY93A  boards  and  he
rejects their findings.  According to the applicant, no comparison  of
records was possible during the SSB process due to the destruction  of
all score data by the Air Force, and the absence of the original score
data casts serious doubt on the veracity and legitimacy of the SSBs.

He provided another letter, dated  24  Jan  05,  indicating  the  SSBs
failed to remedy the Air Force errors he has listed.   Their  findings
are unacceptable and if allowed to stand would perpetuate past  abuses
of the promotion system, further damaging the affected  officers.   He
requests direct promotion to lieutenant colonel as though selected  by
the CY92B board, with back pay, allowances, benefits,  and  adjustment
of his retirement pay and date.

Applicant’s complete submissions, with attachment, are at  Exhibits  M
and N.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO indicated that they provided a response to the applicant by
letter dated  3  Jan  05.   The  applicant  is  correct  in  that  the
Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) had to be obtained from him.   A
thorough review was done to find the PRF through  personnel  channels,
but it could not be located.   He  could  have  at  anytime  prior  to
meeting  the  SSB  requested  corrections  to  his  PRF  through   the
Evaluation Review Appeals Board process.  In addition,  the  applicant
had every opportunity to request a copy of his records  prior  to  the
board to ensure they were complete.

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

AFPC/JA recommended denial indicating that in light of  the  applicant
having presented no evidence whatsoever that his SSBs were not carried
out in accordance  with  the  governing  instruction,  and  the  clear
federal precedent expressly upholding the validity of  the  manner  in
which that instruction has implemented 10 USC 628, it  is  clear  that
the applicant’s appeal presents no error or  injustice  regarding  the
SSBs.  There is no burden on the Air Force to “prove”  anything  more.
While the allegation that no one other than persons  within  AFPC  are
privy to the SSB process fails to state  any  error,  it  is  also  an
inaccurate statement factually.  The SSBs are, like regular  promotion
boards, made up of officers from a  diverse  representation  of  major
commands (MAJCOMs) and career areas.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that the damage done to officers and their families by  the
actions of the Air Force could  hardly  be  referred  to  as  harmless
error.  In the presence of manifest coercion and fraud, the  Secretary
must provide a remedy.  The SSB has failed to do that in every respect
and conversely insures  that  affected  officers  continue  to  suffer
damage.  Simply telling these  officers  that  they  were  reevaluated
against corrupted “benchmark records” and again denied promotion would
not be acceptable to the courts and is  not  acceptable  to  him.   He
expects an honest evaluation that provides a new retirement date based
on a legal separation.  Thus far, the SSB process and the  Board  have
failed.  If direct promotion is not the answer, then he asks the Board
to find another one.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit R.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In an earlier finding,  we  determined  that  there  was  insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action  regarding  the  applicant’s
request for  direct  promotion.   His  most  recent  submissions  were
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).   Therefore,  in  the
absence of more evidence which shows to our satisfaction the applicant
was not fairly and equitably considered for  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel by duly constituted SSBs, we agree with the recommendation  of
the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision  that
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.   Accordingly,  we  conclude
that no compelling basis  exists  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 3 Aug 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following additional documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-1999-00459 was considered:

    Exhibit L.  Memorandum for Chief of Staff, dated 4 Mar 04,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit M.  Ltr, applicant, dated 15 Dec 04.
    Exhibit N.  Ltr, applicant, dated 24 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit O.  Ltr, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Feb 05.
    Exhibit P.  Ltr, AFPC/JA, dated 25 Mar 05.
    Exhibit Q.  Ltr, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
    Exhibit R.  Ltr, applicant, dated 16 Apr 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair