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

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1995-03805
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  JOSEPH W. KASTL

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES



________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.     His  record,  to  include  a  Promotion  Recommendation  Form   (PRF)
reflecting a “Definitely Promote (DP)”  recommendation,  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for
the  Calendar  Year  1994  (CY94)  Colonel  Selection  Board;  or   in   the
alternative,

2.    He be promoted to the grade of colonel as  if  selected  by  the  CY94
board.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since he never received a rating from the aggregate board, it  is  erroneous
to state that he got a “Promote (P)” recommendation, met the  SSB,  and  was
not promoted.  Based on his performance, eye-watering  performance  reports,
and past high recommendations, his record  was  clearly  competitive  for  a
“DP” recommendation.  He questions how the aggregate board could say he  was
given a “P” recommendation when in fact they only saw the illegal  PRF  sent
by the senior rater.

It was the decision of the USAFE MLEB that his records go to  the  aggregate
board to compete for a “DP” recommendation.  One  of  the  general  officers
sitting  on  the  USAFE  MLEB  was  responsible  for  his  getting  a   “DP”
recommendation during his below-the-promotion zone (BTZ) consideration.   As
such, he was at the top to receive a “DP” recommendation from the  aggregate
board until the senior rater look illegal steps to change the PRF.

Applicant/Counsel’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at  Exhibits
FF and GG.

________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 August 1996, the Board considered applicant’s  requests  that  the  PRF
prepared for the CY94 Colonel Selection Board be declared  void  and  he  be
promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected  by  the  CY94  board.   The
Board found sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  voiding  the  contested  PRF,
replacing it with a  PRF  reflecting  an  overall  evaluation  of  “P,”  and
providing the applicant promotion consideration  by  an  SSB  for  the  CY94
board.  However, the Board found insufficient evidence of a  probable  error
or injustice to warrant  his  direct  promotion  to  the  grade  of  colonel
through the correction of records process.  For an accounting of  the  facts
and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the  rationale
of the earlier decision by the Board,  see  the  Record  of  Proceedings  at
Exhibit H.


An SSB, convened on 13 January 1997 for the CY94 board, and  considered  and
non-selected the applicant for promotion to the grade of colonel.



On 11 May 1999, the Board considered the applicant’s  amended  request  that
the Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  1
April  1993  through  31 March  1994,  be  removed  from  his  records;  his
nonselection for promotion to the grade of colonel by the  SSB  be  declared
void; and he  be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  colonel.   The  Board  found
sufficient evidence to warrant voiding the contested OPR and  providing  him
promotion consideration by another SSB for the  CY94  Col  Board.   However,
the  Board  again  found  insufficient  evidence  of  a  probable  error  or
injustice to warrant his direct promotion to the grade  of  colonel  through
the correction of records process.  For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the  rationale  of
the  earlier  decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Addendum  to  Record   of
Proceedings at Exhibit L.

An SSB, convened on 10 January 2000 for the CY94A, CY96A, and CY98C  boards,
and considered and non-selected the applicant for promotion to the grade  of
colonel.



An SSB, convened on 13 July  2000  for  the  CY95A  and  CY97B  boards,  and
considered and non-selected the applicant for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel.







On 24 April 2003, the Board reconsidered his request for  promotion  to  the
grade  of  colonel.   The  Board  found  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant
circumventing the SSB  process  and  promoting  the  applicant  through  the
correction  of  records  process.   For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the  rationale  of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the  Second  Addendum  to  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit EE.

In letters of 13 January and 2 December 2005, the applicant and his  counsel
request direct promotion to the grade of colonel,  or  in  the  alternative,
SSB consideration for the CY 94 Col Board with a “DP” PRF,  contending  that
applicant never received a “P” recommendation from the aggregate  board  and
that based on  his  record  of  performance,  would  have  received  a  “DP”
recommendation (Exhibits FF and GG).


________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s  request  to  be  awarded  a
“DP” recommendation and states, in part, that without a  competitive  review
of the other officers competing at the USAFE MLEB  or  the  USAF  Evaluation
Board, and the lack of support from the senior rater or MLEB president,  the
only conclusion would  be  that  the  applicant’s  record  would  have  been
awarded a “P” recommendation.  While the senior rater may have  changed  the
PRF recommendation, one of the MLEB members which reviewed the original  PRF
gave no indication the PRF would have earned a “DP” recommendation given  by
the MLEB or sent to the USAF Evaluation Board.  In the  absence  of  support
from the senior rater or MLEB president to indicate the  applicant’s  record
would  have  been  forwarded  to  the   USAF   Evaluation   Board,   a   “P”
recommendation would be the appropriate recommendation given as a result  of
the MLEB.  Although the applicant provides various letters of  support,  the
letters are primarily aimed at pointing  out  the  unfairness  of  the  MLEB
process and that applicant should be promoted.  However,  these  individuals
have no basis for comparison  against  which  to  make  the  assertion  that
applicant’s record would have warranted a “DP” recommendation, as  they  did
not sit on the original USAFE MLEB.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit II.

________________________________________________________________







APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Contrary to the evaluation irrefutable evidence of  an  error  or  injustice
has been presented.   He had a most impressive record and in the prior  1993
cycle had been  recommended  for  BTZ  promotion  -  extremely  rare  for  a
chaplain.  Since his superiors previously awarded him a “DP”  recommendation
BTZ in the prior cycle, they manifestly would have given him  a  well-earned
“DP” recommendation his first time eligible  in  the  promotion  zone.   Two
former CY94A Chaplain Selection Board members corroborate the excellence  of
his work and his sustained superior effort, and  support  his  request.   As
the only two chaplains sitting on the board with line officers, it  is  fair
to conclude the remaining board members, i.e.,  line  officers,  would  have
followed the voting chaplains.  This should  mitigate  against  a  mere  “P”
recommendation.  Furthermore, he has obtained support from the former  Chief
of Chaplains and two other senior chaplains.

In  further  support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant’s   counsel   submits
statements from two former USAFE MLEB members.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit KK.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and  the  additional  documentation  submitted  by  applicant,  we
remain unpersuaded the overall recommendation on the  contested  PRF  should
be upgraded to “DP.”  In this respect, we note the USAFE  MLEB  convened  on
24 May 1994; the Aggregate Board convened on 14 June 1994;  and  the  senior
rater replaced the PRF on 20 June 1994.  Despite this  sequence  of  events,
and the fact that in 1996 the applicant contended the  senior  rater  pulled
the PRF that met the Aggregate Board, he now contends, through counsel,  the
senior rater replaced the PRF prior to its consideration  by  the  Aggregate
Board.  However, since the evidence of record  indicates  the  senior  rater
did not replace the PRF until after  the  USAFE  MLEB  and  Aggregate  Board
convened, we find this contention without merit.  Although counsel  contends
it was erroneous for the previous AFBCMR panel to  determine  the  applicant
received a “P” recommendation through the aggregate process, we  believe  it
is obvious they did so based on the  evidence  of  record  before  them,  to
include a statement from the former senior chaplain  indicating  the  senior
rater told  him  the  applicant  received  a  “P”  recommendation  from  the
Aggregate Board.  In addition, the PRF reflecting an overall  recommendation
of “P” that was directed to be placed  in  the  applicant’s  record  by  the
previous AFBCMR panel was provided by the  former  senior  chaplain  in  his
letter of 9 July 1996 as the original PRF reviewed by  the  USAFE  MLEB  and
Aggregate Board.  Moreover, counsel has failed to provide  a  reaccomplished
PRF from the senior rater reflecting a “DP” recommendation and a  supporting
statement  from  the  USAFE  MLEB  president  indicating   the   applicant’s
corrected record of performance was supplementally considered against  those
records receiving a carry-over “DP”  recommendation  through  the  aggregate
process and the determination was made that it would have warranted  a  “DP”
recommendation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

2.    In view of our above finding, and since there has been no showing  the
applicant was denied fair and  equitable  consideration  for  promotion,  we
again find no basis upon which to recommend  his  direct  promotion  to  the
grade of  colonel  through  the  correction  of  records  process.   As  the
applicant has been previously advised, the  AFBCMR  observes  that  officers
compete for promotion under the whole person concept whereby a multitude  of
factors are carefully assessed by  the  selection  board  members  prior  to
scoring the record.   In  addition,  they  may  be  qualified  but,  in  the
judgment of selection board members vested with the discretionary  authority
to score their records, may not be the best  qualified  of  those  available
for the limited number  of  promotion  vacancies.   Consequently,  a  direct
promotion should be granted only under extraordinary circumstances; i.e.,  a
showing that the officer’s record cannot be reconstructed in such  a  manner
so as to permit him/her to compete for promotion on  a  fair  and  equitable
basis; a showing that the officer exercised due diligent in pursuing  timely
and  effective  relief;  and  lastly,  that  had  the  original  errors  not
occurred, the probability of his being selected  for  promotion  would  have
been extremely high.  We do not find these factors in this case.

3.  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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the additional  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  Docket  Number  BC-1995-03805
in Executive Session on 15 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit EE.  Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                 w/atchs.
    Exhibit FF.  Letter, Counsel, dated 13 Jan 05.
    Exhibit GG.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit HH.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Mar 06.
    Exhibit II.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 27 Nov 06.
    Exhibit JJ.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Dec 06.
    Exhibit KK.  Letter, Counsel, dated 5 Jan 07, w/atchs.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Chair