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

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02058
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 November 2007

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His record,  to  include  a  letter  from  the  Commander,  Air  Force
Personnel Center (AFPC/CC) to the President of the Special Selection  Boards
(SSBs)  stating  that,  “All  assignment,  OER,  OPR,  PRF,  PME  and  award
documentations for the period “AFTER” Sep  1987  to  28  Feb  1998  are  NOT
available for administrative reasons which were the fault of the  Air  Force
and not the member.”, be considered for promotion to the grade of  brigadier
general (O-7) by SSBs for the Calendar Years 1991 through 1997 boards  (CY91
-  CY97)  brigadier  general  selection  boards,  and  if  selected,  he  be
considered for promotion to the grade of major general (O-8)  by  all  major
general selection boards that he would have been eligible.

2.    He be paid for the 152 ½ days leave that he accrued during the  period
1 February 1993 to 28 February 1998.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As an O-6 with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 February 1989, he would  have  been
eligible for  seven  brigadier  general  selection  boards.   He  seeks  SSB
consideration for these boards with a selection record that has been  purged
of any records that are in error because of his promotion to colonel  by  an
SSB for the CY87 Central Colonel Selection  Board,  i.e.,  modifications  to
Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs), Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs),
Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs), etc.  The AFPC/CC letter will  remove
the lieutenant colonel evidence that he should not have had and  the  boards
will not be able to see the negative lieutenant colonel  evidence  and  make
any assumptions one way or another.

He was unable to use the leave he accrued during the period 1 February  1993
to 28 February 1998 because it was beyond his control.  As such,  he  should
be paid for this leave.  While  normally  individuals  are  prohibited  from
carrying forward more than 60 days, under unique circumstances they  can  be
permitted to do so.  Since his situation does not occur  often  in  the  Air
Force, he should be paid for the unused leave he did not  get  a  change  to
use.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 June 1990, the AFBCMR considered the applicant’s request  that  he  be
awarded the  Purple  Heart  (PH),  and  that  his  record,  to  include  the
Distinguished Flying  Cross  (DFC)  awarded  for  extraordinary  achievement
during  the  period  19 August  1969  to  3 July  1970,  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by an SSB for the Calendar Years 1987  and
1989 (CY87 & CY89) Central Colonel Boards.  The  AFBCMR  found  insufficient
evidence of an error or injustice to warrant  awarding  the  PH  and  denied
this portion of  the  application;  however,  the  AFBCMR  found  sufficient
evidence to warrant SSB consideration, with the DFC a matter of record.

On 25 February 2004, the AFBCMR reconsidered applicant’s requests and  found
insufficient evidence of error or  injustice  in  regard  to  the  DFC.   By
majority vote, the AFBCMR found insufficient evidence  to  warrant  awarding
the PH.  However, after considering all of the circumstances  of  the  case,
the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, accepted the  opinion  of  the
minority member and directed that the  applicant  be  awarded  the  PH.   In
addition, he directed that the DFC  awarded  for  extraordinary  achievement
during the period 19 August 1969 to 3 July 1970,  be  corrected  to  reflect
that it was awarded for extraordinary achievement on 26 December  1969,  and
the applicant be considered for promotion to the grade of  colonel  for  the
Calendar Year 1987 (CY87) Central Colonel Board.  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 C.

Applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of  colonel  by  an  SSB
which convened on 13 September 2004, for the CY87 Central Colonel Board  and
selected.  He was retroactively promoted to the grade of  colonel  effective
1 February 1989.

On 26 July 2005, the AFBCMR considered  and  denied  his  request  that  his
degenerative arthritis and condition of the skeletal system be  assessed  as
combat related in order to qualify for  additional  compensation  under  the
CRSC Act.  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 D.

Department of the Air Force special order  AC-006373,  dated  8 March  2005,
amended applicant’s retirement orders (AC-004432, dated 10 January 1992)  to
reflect his retirement grade and  highest  grade  held  on  active  duty  as
colonel, rather than lieutenant colonel.

Based on his DOR to O-6 of 1 February 1989, had he remained on active  duty,
he would have first been eligible for promotion consideration  by  the  CY91
Brigadier General Promotion Board.

In an application, dated 24  February  2005,  the  applicant  requested  the
following:

      1.    His retirement date of 1 February 1993  be  changed  to  1 March
1998.

      2.    He be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  brigadier
general (O-7) by a Special Selection  Board  (SSB)  using  O-5  records,  to
include the old AF Form 11, that were used for his  selection  to  O-6.   If
selected for promotion by the SSB, he be considered  for  promotion  to  the
grade of major general (O-8) by an SSB using the same conditions.

       3.     He  be  voluntarily  ordered  to  active   duty   during   the
mobilization for Operation Enduring Freedom and serve until  he  had  served
the amount of time in grade he would have had on 28 February 1998  (9  years
and 1 month).

      4.    He be allowed  to  increase  his  Survivor  Benefit  Plan  (SBP)
amount to the maximum benefit with the cost increase effective  22  February
2005.

      5.    He be paid for 152 ½ days accrued  leave  as  an  O-6  effective
28 February 1998  and  the  60  days  accrued  leave  he  was  paid  for  on
31 January 1993, be paid at the O-6 rate, or in the alternative, he be  paid
for 60 days as an O-6 effective 28 February 1998, or if returned  to  active
duty, 60 days be added to his active duty leave account.

      6.    He be allowed to audit Air War College  (AWC)  in  residence  on
active duty.

On  26  February  2006,  the  AFBCMR  considered  his  requests  and   found
insufficient evidence to warrant correcting his records to  show  he  served
on active duty until his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) as a colonel.   The
AFBCMR noted that prior to determining whether or not  his  retirement  date
would have changed, it should first be  determined  whether  he  would  have
been selected by  the  1992  and  1993  Selective  Early  Retirement  Boards
(SERBs).  In view of this, the  AFBCMR  recommended  voidance  of  the  OPRs
rendered subsequent to his 1989 promotion and  replacing  them  with  an  AF
Form  77  indicating,  “Report   for   this   period   not   available   for
administrative reasons which were not the fault of the  member,”   and  that
his corrected record be considered by a  Special  Board  for  the  FY92  and
possibly the FY94 SERBs, using the modified selection  process  employed  in
the Berkley cases, i.e., he need only tie or  beat  one  retained  benchmark
record  to  be  considered   retained.    However,   after   reviewing   the
recommendation of the AFBCMR, the Director, Air Force Review  Boards  Agency
(SAF/MRB) determined there were a number of factors the applicant could  not
overcome to receive fair  and  equitable  consideration  for  retention  and
directed that his retirement date  be  changed  to  1 March  1998.   For  an
accounting of  the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s
separation, and the rationale of the earlier  decisions  by  the  Board  and
SAF/MRB, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.

Department of the Air Force special order AL-001007, dated  18 August  2006,
retired the applicant in the grade of colonel, effective 1 March 1998,  with
34 years, 5 months, and 21 days of active service for  retirement  and  over
40 years of service for basic pay.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the applicant’s requests be denied,  and  states,  in
part, the contested OPRs can be corrected to reflect the grade  of  colonel,
rather than lieutenant colonel,  and  should  not  be  voided.   Although  a
letter from the AFPC/CC indicating that, “…reports covering the  time  frame
are not available…” cannot be placed in  his  records,  in  accordance  with
established procedures,  an  AF  Form  77,  Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet,
covering the period 24 February 1992 through 23  February  1997,  should  be
filed in his records indicating that,  “Reports  for  this  period  are  not
available for administrative  reasons  which  were  not  the  fault  of  the
member.”  Since a final evaluation report prior to a member’s retirement  is
optional and not required, there exists no requirement to include the  dates
of the last report on the AF Form 77.  Further, the applicant  must  contact
the AFPC/CC himself and request such a letter.  If  the  AFPC/CC  agrees  to
write the  letter  and  the  applicant  is  granted  supplemental  promotion
consideration, he may at that time provide the letter and  request  that  it
be provided to the SSBs.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPSO recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be paid for 152  ½
days of unused leave.  The applicant originally retired on 1  February  1993
and was paid for 60 days  of  leave  -  the  maximum  allowed.   It  is  the
individual’s responsibility to ensure their records are up to  date  at  all
times.  Although the series of events occurred, the applicant did not  serve
any time on active duty from 2 February 1993 to 1 March 1998; therefore,  he
did not actually accrue the leave  that  he  is  requesting.   This  was  an
administrative correction only and not an error or injustice caused  by  the
Air Force, and that by law, he should not be paid for the additional  152  ½
days of leave requested.

The AFPC/DPSO evaluation is at Exhibit G.

AF/DPO recommends denial of the request to replace the  PRF  with  a  letter
from the AFPC/CC and SSB consideration to the grade  of  brigadier  general.
In order for the PRF to be corrected, the applicant  needs  to  contact  the
senior rater at  the  time  and  have  his  record  reviewed  against  other
colonels who were eligible at the time of the selection board.  Since  these
colonels have not retired, separated, or have been promoted  to  the  higher
grade, there is no way to determine whether or not he would have been  given
a higher ranking than his peers.

The AF/DPO evaluation is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Contrary to AFPC/DPSO’s opinion, he was not retired on 1 February 1993,  but
was continued on active duty and retired on 1 March 1998.  He  received  his
DOR well before his High Year Tenure (HYT) appeal.  Although he did  receive
payment of the 60 days of leave in 1993,  when  his  HYT  was  approved  his
leave payment was changed to 28 February 1998; thus, invalidating  his  1993
leave and retirement.  Until this incident, he never lost leave  during  his
Air Force career.  If it were not the Air Force  causing  these  errors  and
injustices, his retirement date would never have been  changed  to  1  March
1998.

He is not seeking to have documents voided  from  his  selection  folder  as
indicated by AFPC/DPPPEP, but rather to  have  his  records  purged  of  any
error because of his promotion to colonel.  He  also  did  not  request  the
AFPC/CC letter replace records in his selection folder.   To  the  contrary,
the AFPC/CC letter should be sent to the President of the  SSBs  to  explain
why the records were missing.  As it stands, his assignment, OER, OPR,  PRF,
Professional Military Education (PME), and award documentation  portrays  an
inaccurate record after September 1987.  While his grade can be  changed  on
the contested reports, he is concerned with  the  total  reports  and  their
contents.  As a colonel, he would have insisted on receiving  a  final  OPR.
To do otherwise would create a six-year gap in his promotion record.   Since
the AFPC/CC “owns/controls” the SSBs, if the AFBCMR  approves  this  portion
of his application, the promotion group should prepare the  letter  for  the
signature of the  AFPC/CC  and  give  it  to  the  President  of  the  SSBs.
Further, he never requested his PRF be replaced  with  the  AFPC/CC  letter.
His record, as it met the September 2004 SSB and with updates to four  lines
on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), should be considered for promotion  to
the grade of brigadier general by the SSBs.

With respect to the comments of AF/DPO, he never had a PRF  prepared  for  a
brigadier general promotion board.  Moreover, if he had a PRF  in  1991  and
1992, it would be impossible to now get the senior rater  to  determine  his
ranking among his peers because he is deceased.  The  AFBCMR  should  review
the comments contained in the SAF/MRB memorandum, dated 11  April  2006,  as
they do a much better job of expressing his concerns that he does.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  The applicant’s request to be paid for the 152  ½  days  leave  that  he
accrued  during  the  period  1  February  1993  to  28  February  1998  was
previously considered and denied by this Board.   Since  the  applicant  has
provided no new and relevant evidence regarding this issue, this portion  of
his application does not meet the criteria  for  reconsideration.   In  this
respect, we  note  that  reconsideration  is  authorized  only  where  newly
discovered  relevant  evidence  is  presented  which  was   not   reasonably
available  when  the  application  was  originally  submitted.   Since   the
applicant has provided no  such  evidence,  further  consideration  of  this
issue is not possible.

4.    In  his  most  recent  application  of  3  July  2006,  the  applicant
requested that his previous SBP elections be cancelled; that he  be  allowed
to make a new election  effective  1 March  1998;  and  that  he  be  issued
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders  authorizing  his  1 February  1993
reassignment;  however,  since  these  issues  have  been  resolved  to  his
satisfaction, he has withdrawn these requests.

5.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice to warrant his  promotion  consideration  to
brigadier general  by  an  SSB  using  a  modified  selection  process.   As
previously indicated by this Board, we are without authority to direct  that
he be considered for promotion to the grade of brigadier  general  (O-7)  by
an SSB using a modified selection process.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

6.  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-2006-02058
in Executive Session on 16 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Second Addendum to ROP, BC-1990-00446.
    Exhibit D.  ROP, BC-2004-02117.
    Exhibit E.  ROP, BC-2005-00782.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 20 Oct 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPSO, dated 27 Dec 06.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AF/DPO, dated 26 Feb 07.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Mar 07.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Mar 07, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair