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


IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00395
                                        INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05,
131.01
      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx             COUNSEL:  Mr. David P. Sheldon
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for  reconsideration,  she  asks  that  her
Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 8 Jun 03 through 4 Jun
04 be removed from her records; she be directly promoted to colonel or
alternatively,  she   be   given   Special   Selection   Board   (SSB)
consideration for the Calendar  Year  2004A  (CY04A)  Colonel  Central
Selection Board (CSB) and she be awarded all back pay  and  allowances
to which she is entitled.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC), with a date of  rank  of  1 Jan 00.
She was considered but not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by the CY04A, CY05A, CY06A and CY07A CSBs.

On 14 Jul 05 and 25 Apr 06,  the  AFBCMR  considered  and  denied  the
applicant’s  requests  for  voidance  of  her   4 Jun   04   OPR   and
consideration by an  SSB  for  the  CY04A  selection  board.   For  an
accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and the
rationale of the earlier decision by the Board,  see  the  Records  of
Proceedings at Exhibits F & G.

The applicant's counsel has provided additional evidence to  show  the
additional rater (also the reviewer) prepared the applicant's  OPR  in
violation of law because the additional rater did not comply with  his
legal duties for performance reporting.  The additional rater/reviewer
failed to review  the  applicant's  Personal  Information  File  (PIF)
before signing her OPR on 1 Jul 04.  Because he  neglected  to  review
her PIF, he failed to recognize the need for additional information to
explain the disparity between the rater's comments  in  her  contested
OPR and her OPR from the previous year, and  as  a  result  failed  to
obtain that information from competent sources.  As the  reviewer,  he
had the legal and moral obligation to uphold quality  control  in  the
performance review process and to guard against inaccuracy.  The legal
error in the preparation of this OPR and its continued presence in the
applicants' military record have caused an injustice to the  applicant
and ongoing damage to her career.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
H.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states that the only evidence
the applicant provides were copies of her additional  rater/reviewer's
travel voucher which does show he was elsewhere on the date the report
was signed.  The fact that the additional rater/reviewer  was  TDY  on
the date the report was signed is not evidence that he did not  review
the PIF.  Furthermore, advises DPSIDEP, although reviewing the PIF  is
outlined as a responsibility of all evaluator's in the AFI, the intent
is to ensure evaluator's are aware of the duty  performance  of  those
individuals  they  are  evaluating,  through  what  ever   means   are
available, which includes but is not limited  to  personal  day-to-day
contact, reviewing of records, gathering information  from  those  who
have direct knowledge of her  performance  etc.   The  failure  of  an
additional rater to review someone's PIF is not, in itself, sufficient
grounds to void a report.  The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is  at
Exhibit I.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial.  DPSOO advises the  applicant  has  four
nonselections to the grade of colonel.  The results of  the  CSBs  the
applicant met were based on a complete review of her entire  selection
record, assessing  whole  person  factors  such  as  job  performance,
professional qualities, depth and breadth of  experience,  leadership,
and education.  Although the officer may be qualified  for  promotion,
she may not be the best qualified of other eligible officers competing
for the limited number of promotion vacancies in  the  judgment  of  a
selection board vested  with  discretionary  authority  to  make  such
selections.  Furthermore, to grant a direct promotion would be  unfair
to all other officers who have extremely competitive records  but  did
not get promoted.  The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit J.


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

In letters dated 19 Feb 08 and 18  Mar  08,  the  applicant's  counsel
reiterates that the failure of the additional rater/reviewer to comply
with his mandatory regulatory duties and responsibilities  created  an
error and injustice in this matter.  Had the additional rater/reviewer
reviewed the PIF, he would have noticed the stark contrast between the
disputed OPR and the OPR for the previous reporting period  especially
given that the applicant was performing the same job and  all  of  her
contemporaries except one were the same as the previous  period.   The
complete counsel's letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit L.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing the evidence of record,  the  applicant's  prior
submissions and the additional evidence provided  in  support  of  her
appeal, we find no evidence of an error and we are not  persuaded  the
applicant is a victim  of  an  injustice.    We  carefully  considered
counsel's contentions regarding this  matter  including  his  argument
that the failure  of  the  additional  rater/reviewer  to  review  the
applicant's PIF prior to signing the OPR, rendered an  inaccurate  and
illegal OPR and the presence of this OPR  in  the  applicant's  record
continues  to  damage  her  career.   However,  as  outlined  by   the
Directorate of Personnel Services, duty performance awareness  is  not
limited  to  reviewing  the  PIF  but  through  what  ever  means  are
available.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of
the Air Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   Other  than  continued
assertions of wrongdoing on the part  of  the  applicant's  additional
rater/reviewer, convincing evidence has not been presented to  support
voiding the contested OPR.   Likewise,  we  find  no  basis  that  the
applicant be given direct promotion  to  colonel  with  back  pay  and
allowances or be considered by an SSB.   In  view  of  the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling
basis on which to overturn the Board’s earlier determination that this
appeal should be denied.

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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00395 in Executive Session on 6 August 2008, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                             Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                             Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
                             Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2005-
00395 was considered:

   Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 1 Aug 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 25 Apr 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 3 Dec 07.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 31 Dec 07.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jan 08.
   Exhibit L.  Letters, Counsel, dated 19 Feb 08 w/atchs,
               and 18 Mar 08, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair