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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1988-02167
            INDEX CODE:  111.00, 131.00
      COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) for the periods closing  15  August
1984, 15 August 1985, and 27 March 1986 be removed  from  his  records.   In
addition, he also requests promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  or
a higher rank based upon the corrected and/or redacted OERs.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 12 October  1988.
  For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding   the
applicant’s appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by  the  Board,
see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

In a letter dated 17 June 2004, the applicant requested  reconsideration  of
his appeal (Exhibit G).  On 19 July 2004, his request was denied because  it
did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit H).

In an application dated  8  February  2008,  the  applicant  again  requests
reconsideration.  He states it is irrefutably established that  an  IDT  may
be on the weekend, especially  when  agreed  to  by  the  unit  active  duty
supervisor and the reservist.  There should be no problem  with  IDT  either
on the weekend or during the  week  when  it  supports  the  mission.   This
should have especially been the case at Langley AFB, a major base  where  he
trained as a Reserve Disaster Preparedness Officer.

Military units require flexibility with work schedules,  especially  as  has
been shown since the events of September 11,  2001,  and  should  have  been
known after the weekend attacks at Pearl Harbor and in Beirut.  One  of  the
functions of the Disaster Preparedness Office, Langley  AFB,  in  the  1980s
was to prepare for  domestic  security  problems  to  include  sabotage  and
terrorism.  A valid Disaster Preparedness program  prepares  staff  for  any
eventuality, at any time.  The Base  Emergency  Operational  Plan  which  he
helped write covered all contingencies.  A program that provides  Reservists
a wide range of training opportunities is necessary  and  an  administrative
headquarter should not  be  setting  rigid  training  schedules.   The  saga
portrayed herein is just another  example  of  central  commands  subverting
proven military doctrine…leave most decisions to field and unit commanders.

The policy  for  BDPAO  training,  dated  12  June  1984  outlines  specific
requirements to be adhered to.  However, the implementation of  this  policy
was diametrically opposed to this writing and has caused an injustice.

The issues brought forth were attempted to be dealt with at  the  time  they
occurred as evidenced by comments in his performance reports.  Since  issues
involved base defense he went to the Inspector General at Langley Air  Force
Base and was informed that  his  concerns  were  not  operational  but  were
performance based and his issues  were  past  the  statute  of  limitations.
Issues are clearly both operational and performance oriented  and  hopefully
will be dealt with on a military wide basis in spite  of  the  outcome  with
his appeal.  Reservists are being used for every conceivable  role  overseas
- so why aren’t they properly being used for base defense in  this  Country?
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

ARPC/DPB  recommends  denial.   DPB  states  the  applicant   believes   the
requirement to perform at least 50% of  his  IDTs  during  the  weekday  was
illegal.  He submits a  response  to  a  Presidential  inquiry  (applicant’s
attachment 1a) and a Letter of Justification for  ANG  mandays  (applicant’s
attachment 1c) to support his position.

The response to the Presidential inquiry states “…the Air Force  Reserve  is
committed in utilizing weekend drills as the primary option when  conducting
monthly unit training assemblies (UTAs).”   “…IDTs  are  normally  performed
during the weekend unless mission requirements or a request from the  member
alters the schedule.”  The letter is dated 2007.

The request for manday support (from the ANG) is for NCOs, not  commissioned
officers.

“UTA” is the  term  used  for  those  organizations  of  the  Ready  Reserve
(Selected Reserve) whose members train as a unit to be mobilized as  a  unit
(Title 10 United States  Code  Section  268,  1967  amendment,  and  Section
10143, 1994 amendment, attached).

“IDT” is the term used for those members of the Ready Reserve who  train  as
individuals,  not  as   units   (identified   as   individual   mobilization
augmentees, IMAs).  IMAs train alongside the active duty members  they  will
replace when mobilization of the active duty member occurs.

As an IMA (indicated on OER, block 6 PAS CODE of “96xxxxxx”)  the  applicant
was required  to  train  alongside  the  active  duty  member  he  would  be
replacing in war or national emergency.  Requiring the  applicant  to  train
at least  50%  of  his  IDTs  during  the  normal  work  week  was  actually
accommodating to his schedule; most Line of the  Air  Force  IMAs  then  and
now, performed IDTs only during the work week.

OERs written by his rating chain at the time the evaluation period  occurred
were reflective of his then current job performance.  As stated in  his  OER
closing 15 August 1985 section III and block 9 “…Previous  misunderstandings
of the demands of this IMA  program  have  not  been  completely  resolved.”
Nothing derogatory was written, only the current facts of  performance.   If
the applicant felt these reports were inaccurate or inflammatory,  appealing
them when written would be more appropriate, rather than waiting 20+  years.
 The “new evidence” cited in the  applicant’s  package,  reflects  the  same
information of practices and  terminology  used  20  years  ago  by  current
leadership.   This  is  not  new  evidence;  simply  a   rehash   of   other
information.

The complete DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE EVALUATION

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states the following:

In response to paragraph 3a - this did not point out new evidence where  the
Base Disaster Preparedness Office is required by AFR  355-1  to  maintain  a
ready response capability seven days a week, 24 hours a  day.   Two  members
of this office must be on standby at all times.  It  also  did  not  include
new evidence where the administrative officer  for  the  14th  AF/DW  stated
“I’ve drafted a letter for the boss to sign to H---.”   This  is  a  smoking
gun of the extent of complicity and irregular and prejudicial  treatment  he
received in eliminating him from the program as confirmed by  his  reporting
official.

In response to paragraph 3b - this  generic  policy  omits  the  requirement
where the manning document for  the  office  required  seven  day  per  week
staffing.  This was not  done  frequently  due  to  lack  of  coverage.   In
actually, the office should have consistently been manned  on  the  weekend,
thereby making weekend work as much a part  of  local  duty  hours  as  work
Monday through Friday.  Are  local  duty  hours  for  radar  operators  only
during the week or seven days per  week?   The  14th  AF/DW  policy  in  its
handbook states “Your training schedules should be established  between  you
and  your  training  supervisor  (Disaster  Preparedness   Officer,   Plans,
Operations and Military Support Officer, etc.)”   He  always  complied  with
the local policy.  Further operational  requirements  were  seven  days  per
week so working during the week or weekend should not be an issue.

In response to paragraph 3c – Notice this now says  during  the  work  week.
It depends on the office requirements  for  the  work  week,  either  Monday
through Friday or Monday through Sunday.  His findings, as  corroborated  by
superior officers are that IMAs could not consistently comply with at  least
50% of IDTs during the week.  The letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Air
Force states “To reaffirm, IDTs are normally performed  during  the  weekend
unless mission  requirements  or  a  request  from  the  member  alters  the
schedule.”  The mission of the Disaster Preparedness Office was  to  provide
a seven day per week response capability.

In response to paragraph 3d – If nothing derogatory was written or done  how
was it that the 14th AF/DW  not  only  wanted  to  eliminate  him  from  the
program but then decided on a strategy to either force him  to  transfer  or
ensuring he was never again promoted.  He was threatened with a  “3”  rating
if he did not transfer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In an earlier finding, we determined  there  was  insufficient  evidence  to
warrant any corrective action.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  additional
documentation submitted in support  of  this  appeal  and  the  evidence  of
record,  we  do  not  believe  the  applicant  has  overcome  the  rationale
expressed in our previous decisions.  Therefore, in view of the  above,  and
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon  which  to
recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice; the application was  denied  without
a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-1988-
02167 in Executive Session on 25 August 2008, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Panel Chair
      Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
      Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 June 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 July 2004.
   Exhibit I. DD Form 149, dated 8 February 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit J. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 24 March 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit K. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 April 2008.
   Exhibit L. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 April 2008, w/atchs.





                                   WALLACE F. BEARD, JR.
                                   Panel Chair