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

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01421-2
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.03
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  MR. GARY R. MYERS

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In his application for reconsideration, he be  considered  by  a  Special
Selection Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  2003A  (CY03A)  Colonel
(Chaplain) Central Selection Board (CSB).

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is  currently
serving on active duty with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date  of
24 March 1982 and a projected date of separation  of  31  March  2010.   His
current grade is lieutenant colonel with an effective date  and  a  date  of
rank of 1 April  1999.   The  following  is  a  resume  of  the  applicant’s
performance ratings:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      09 Jul 92 (Major)                            MS
      03 May 93                                    MS
      30 Jun 94                                    MS
      30 Jun 95                                    MS
      30 Jun 96                                    MS
      30 Jun 97                                    MS
      27 May 98                                    MS
      27 May 99 (Lt Col)                           MS
      27 May 00                                    MS
      27 May 01                                    MS
      27 May 02                                    MS
      27 May 03                                    MS
      22 Mar 04                                    MS
      22 Mar 05                                    MS
      22 Mar 06                                    MS


The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the  grade  of
colonel by the CY03B and the CY04C Colonel (Chaplain) CSBs,  which  convened
on 27 October 2003 and 6 December 2004, respectively.

The applicant submitted a similar appeal, which was  considered  and  denied
by the  Board  on  14  October  2004.   The  applicant  contends  the  board
membership  for  the  CY03B  Colonel  (Chaplain)  CSB   was   not   properly
constituted in that an African-American chaplain member  was  knowingly  and
willfully  kept  from  participation  by   command   in   contravention   of
regulation.  For an accounting of the facts  and  circumstances  surrounding
the rationale for the earlier decision by  the  Board,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit G (with Exhibits A-F).

On 14 September 2005, the applicant’s counsel  submitted  a  request  for
reconsideration.   In  support  of  his   request,   he   submits   three
declarations from  senior  chaplains,  disagreeing  with  the  Air  Force
advisory opinions and stating the promotion board was biased and  flawed.


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

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/JAA recommends denial of the applicant request for SSB  consideration.
JAA states the evidence now offered for reconsideration is not  “new”  in
the sense that it was available and existed, but was not obtained by  the
applicant when he first applied for relief from the AFBCMR,  but  rather,
it is additional evidence newly provided apparently  to  corroborate  his
previously  “uncorroborated  assertion”  noted  by   the   AFBCMR.    The
additional evidence provided by  the  applicant  corroborates  his  prior
submitted evidence that the manner in which his promotion  board  members
were selected deviated from prior practice within the chaplaincy, but his
promotion board was constituted in  full  compliance  with  the  relevant
statutes and regulations, and he has provided no evidence  showing  there
was an error or injustice.  The implication that such a deviation somehow
prejudiced the applicant in the promotion process is not supported by the
additional evidence.  Even if  the  applicable  statute  and  regulations
required minority membership on his promotion board (which they do  not),
an African-American did sit as a voting member of  his  promotion  board.
There is no evidence the fact that person was  not  a  chaplain  had  any
prejudicial effect on the applicant or beneficial effect for any of those
who  were  promoted.   Further,  even  if  the  applicable  statute   and
regulations required minority  or  female  membership  on  his  promotion
board, the law does not afford the applicant or  any  other  minority  or
female officer being considered for  promotion  the  right  to  demand  a
specific minority or female individual or a minority or female  from  his
or her specific career field.

It is JAA’s opinion the applicant has failed to demonstrate the existence
of any error or to present  any  facts  or  circumstances  supporting  an
injustice.

The complete AF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit I.

AFGOMO recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  AFGOMO  states  the
Selection Board Secretariat’s Chaplain Board requirement for an  African-
American board member from either the  line  of  the  Air  Force  or  the
Chaplain career field was met.

The complete AFGOMO evaluation is at Exhibit J.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel replies the “deviation”  was  not  known  to  the
chaplaincy at large.  In fact, the African-American  colonel  who  should
have sat on the promotion board was never contacted about the prospect of
sitting on the board.  It is not enough  for  the  government  to  meekly
return to the Board with the rejoinder that a minority line  officer  who
was appointed to the selection board met  the  statutory  and  regulatory
requirements.   An  African-American  chaplain  is  going  to  know   the
reputation, ability, and efficacy of  junior  African-American  chaplains
far better than either a minority line officer or a  Caucasian  chaplain.
That is just the way  it  works.   To  suggest  otherwise  is  to  ignore
reality.  At the risk of appearing flip, only someone who was  never  the
subject of discrimination could have the audacity  to  suggest  that  the
absence of an African-American voice familiar with the chaplaincy had  no
impact upon the selection process.  Why, pray tell, does the Board  think
the standing policy was to have a minority  chaplain  on  such  selection
boards?  It was to protect the legitimate interests of minority chaplains
whose promotion rates  we  have  previously  demonstrated  were  woefully
behind the Caucasian  rates.   The  statements  provided  to  the  Board,
coupled with the concession made by the Air Force  that  a  deviation  in
protocol occurred, created not only the appearance  of  impropriety,  but
also  actual  impropriety.   To  restore  confidence  in  the  chaplaincy
promotion system and to do justice to the applicant, an SSB is  required.


The applicant rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit L.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  Although the applicant has  provided  some
letters by fellow chaplains agreeing with his contentions, we  do  not  find
these statements, in and by themselves, sufficiently  persuasive  so  as  to
override the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility.  In our opinion and based on the  facts  of  this  case,  we
believe that the applicant has not established that he  did  not  receive  a
fair and equitable consideration for promotion through the  selection  board
process.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and  recommendation  of  the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  conclusions  as
our findings in this case.  Accordingly, the  applicant’s  request  for  SSB
consideration is not favorably considered.

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 14 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2004-01421-2:

    Exhibit G.  ROP, dtd 22 Nov 04, w/ Exhibits A through F.
    Exhibit H.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 11 Oct 05, w/atchs
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFGOMO, dtd 8 Dec 05.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AF/JAA, dtd 10 Nov 05.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 05.
    Exhibit L.  Counsel’s Rebuttal, dated 19 Jan 06, w/atchs.




                                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                                   Panel Chair