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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1991-01818
            INDEX CODES:  131.01, 134.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His duty title of Commander, Headquarters Squadron Section, be  voided
from his records, and his records be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30  Nov  93,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  the  applicant’s
application for correction of military records, in which he  requested
that his Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) closing 17  Apr  86,  17
Apr 87, and 17 Apr 88, be voided and removed  from  his  records;  his
nonselection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  be  set
aside; he  be  retroactively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel; he be reinstated to active duty in the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel; and, the derogatory/unfavorable information contained in  his
records be deleted.  A complete copy of  the  Record  of  Proceedings,
with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

By application, dated 11 Oct 06, the applicant requested that his  OER
closing 17 Apr  87  be  voided  and  removed  from  his  records;  his
nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be  set
aside; and he be retroactively promoted to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by a Special Selection Board, with back  pay  and  allowances.
These requests were examined by the Board’s staff and found  they  did
not meet the criteria  for  reconsideration  by  the  Board,  and  the
applicant was notified by letter on 17 May 07 (Exhibit J).

In addition to the above requests which were previously considered and
denied by the Board, the applicant also requested that his duty  title
of Commander,  Headquarters  Squadron  Section,  be  voided  from  his
records.  This request was not a part  of  his  original  application.
The applicant contends the duty title would not have been awarded  had
regulations been adhered to.  Dual assignment to  an  existing  Chief,
Base Administration position in the 6592 Air Base Group,  Los  Angeles
Air Force Base (AFB) should have been permitted.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPASBG recommends denial noting that duty titles  are  determined
by base leadership at the squadron, group and wing levels, and they do
not believe his duty title should be changed from  what  is  currently
archived.  AFPC/DPASBG indicated that they do not have access  to  the
verbiage in the  Commander,  Headquarters  Squadron  Section  nor  the
Chief, Base Administration duty titles to  determine  the  content  of
either.  Therefore, they cannot recommend a change from one duty title
to the other  without  knowing  what  duties  each  held,  along  with
compelling concurrence from the  commander,  who  denied  the  action,
indicating that it should indeed be changed.  Finally, they are not in
a position to question a commander for not double-billeting an officer
under his command for reasons that are not abundantly clear.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPASBG evaluation is at Exhibit K.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial  indicating  the  applicant's  appeal  to
remove a duty history title entry from 1986  should  be  dismissed  as
untimely.  His unreasonable delay regarding a matter now  dating  back
almost 20 years, is without adequate justification, and  a  waiver  of
the time limitation could unreasonably harm the government.

According to AFPC/DPPPO, central boards evaluate the entire  selection
record  to  include  the  promotion   recommendation   form,   officer
performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, training  reports,
letters of evaluation, decorations, and data on the officer  selection
brief (OSB).  The board members assess whole person  factors  such  as
job  performance,  professional  qualities,  breadth  of   experience,
leadership and  academic  and  professional  military  education  when
rendering their decision.  As such, they do not believe the  contested
duty title entry on his OSB caused his nonselection for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel.

Based on AFPC/DPASBG's recommendation the applicant's  record  not  be
changed from what is currently archived, AFPC/DPPPO recommends  denial
for SSB consideration, we strongly recommend the board  find  that  it
would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay, and  deny
the application as untimely.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated the comments in the advisory opinions show a  lack
of expertise regarding Air Force regulations pertinent to the  use  of
military and civilian manpower.  Each is  apparently  unfamiliar  with
key  regulations  that  governed  Air  Force  and  civilian  personnel
utilization and associated assignment mandates.  This failure detracts
from the expectation of gaining the fair, objective  decision  outcome
promised by the Air Force.

There is a simple, straightforward expectation that any duty that  has
been voided from a military officer's record should not be included in
the evaluation of that officer's performance.  The Air Force indicated
it found no new and relevant information whereas  material  errors  of
fact remain due to oversight or error by the Air Force  in  the  past.
He is asking the Board  to  exercise  extraordinary  action  to  again
review this matter.  That an initial denial was erroneous is  obvious.
The Air Force has implied that a fair ruling was made in the past;  he
has yet to experience that fair ruling  and  no  clear  thinker  would
disagree.  Before he died this  year,  he  promised  his  90-year  old
father, a Navy veteran, that he would not give up in  seeking  justice
in this matter.  He believed that the Board would  ultimately  do  the
right thing.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s  request
that his duty title of Commander,  Headquarters  Squadron  Section  be
voided and his records be considered  by  an  SSB.   His  most  recent
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we did not find his  assertions  and  the  supporting
documentation  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the   rationale
expressed by the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility  (OPRs).
Therefore, in the absence of evidence which shows to our  satisfaction
the  applicant’s  duty  title  was  erroneous,  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
favorable action on the applicant’s request.

2.  We noted the applicant requests that his OER closing 17 Apr 87  be
voided and removed from his records; his nonselections  for  promotion
to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  be  set  aside;  and  he   be
retroactively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special
Selection  Board,  with  back  pay  and  allowances.   However,  these
requests  were  previously  examined  by  the  Board’s  staff  and   a
determination was made  that  they  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for
reconsideration.  We agree.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  requests
again are 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  AFBCMR  1991-01818  in
Executive Session on 8 Jan 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 12 Jan 94,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Ltr, AFBCMR, dated 17 May 07.
    Exhibit K.  Ltr, AFPC/DPASBG, dated 31 Oct 07.
    Exhibit L.  Ltr, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 2 Nov 07.
    Exhibit M.  Ltr, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 07.
    Exhibit N.  Ltr, applicant, dated 5 Dec 07, w/atchs.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair