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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00635

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 March 2011

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect his promotion to the  grade  of  colonel
and, if possible, he be recalled to active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His name was unjustly removed from the promotion list  to  colonel  and  all
information regarding removal of  his  name  should  be  stricken  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate he  was  appointed
a second  lieutenant,  Reserve  of  the  Air  Force,  on  1 Jun 57  and  was
voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 30 Sep 57.

He was selected for promotion by the Calendar Year  1977  Temporary  Colonel
Promotion Board, which convened on 5 Dec 77.   On  5 Oct 78,  the  7th  Bomb
Wing Commander initiated  action  to  delay  the  applicant's  promotion  to
colonel.  The reason for this action was based on possible mismanagement  of
personal affairs or dishonorable failure to pay debts.  On 11  Jan  79,  the
7th Bomb Wing Commander notified the applicant that he was  terminating  the
delay.   On  17  Jan  79,  the  19th  Air  Division  Commander  placed   the
termination in abeyance pending the results of an inquiry he initiated.   On
9 Feb 79, the 19th Air Division Commander initiated removal action based  on
eleven counts of failure to pay debts.  The applicant  acknowledged  receipt
on 27 Feb 79 and provided rebuttal comments.  On 5  Mar  79,  the  commander
reviewed the rebuttal and continued with the removal action.


On 14 Mar 79, the 8th Air Force Judge Advocate reviewed the  removal  action
and found it to be legally sufficient and, on 20 Mar 79, the 8th  Air  Force
Commander  concurred  with  the  removal  action.   HQ  SAC  Judge  Advocate
reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient and, on  26  Apr  79,
the Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command (CINCSAC) concurred  with  the
removal action.

On 16  Oct  79,  the  Deputy  Secretary  of  Defense  recommended  that  the
applicant’s name be removed from the recommended list for promotion  to  the
temporary grade of  colonel.   He  indicated  the  applicant  had  exhibited
financial irresponsibility  by  accumulating  new  debts  while  failing  to
discharge old debts during the period  1973  to  1978,  and  by  failing  to
represent his financial status accurately and completely to  new  creditors.


On 15 Feb 80, the President removed the applicant’s name from the  promotion
list.

Applicant was relieved from active duty on 30 Jun 80 and retired for  length
of service, effective 1 Jul 80, in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  He  was
credited with 22 years and 1 month of active service.

In an application, dated 2 February 2006, the applicant requested  that  his
records be corrected to reflect his promotion to the grade of  colonel,  and
if possible, that he  be  recalled  to  active  duty.   In  support  of  his
request, the applicant provided numerous documents,  to  include  statements
from his former Wing Commander, his former Numbered Air Division  Commander,
and the former Eighth  Air  Force  Commander  indicating  the  Numbered  Air
Division commander withheld his promotion  pending  an  investigation  which
later cleared him of  any  wrongdoing  and  as  such,  he  should  have  his
promotion to colonel reinstated.

On 20 June 2007, the Board considered the application in Executive  Session.
 The Board concluded the application was untimely filed and did not  find  a
sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of the application.  For  the
complete facts and circumstances surrounding the Board consideration of  his
request, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit M.

By letter, dated 18 August 2007, the applicant requested reconsideration  of
his appeal and  resubmitted  the  27  September  2005  supporting  statement
provided by the former Numbered Air Force  Commander  previously  considered
by the Board, page three of a  five  page  phone  bill,  and  an  additional
statement from the former Numbered Air Division Commander (Exhibit N).

On 20 March 2008, the applicant was advised the Board reviewed this  request
and determined that it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by  the
Board (Exhibit O).




By letter, dated 20 May 2010, the applicant requests reconsideration of  his
request and provides additional documentation.  In support of  his  request,
the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or
Discharge from the  Armed  Forces;  a  Combat  Mission  Verification,  dated
7 August 1975, reflecting a total of 268 combat missions; a  statement  from
a retired Air Force pilot who worked for the former air  division  commander
when he  was  the  Director  of  Operations  and  Training  at  Headquarters
Strategic Air Command; an additional statement from the former Numbered  Air
Force  Commander  indicating   a  grave  injustice  has  been  done  to  the
applicant in the  withholding  of  his  promotion;  copies  of  his  Officer
Effectiveness Reports; letters of appreciation; and  a  copy  of  a  patent.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit P.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

We have thoroughly reviewed  the  evidence  of  record  and  considered  the
weight and  relevance  of  the  additional  documentation  provided  by  the
applicant, and whether or not  it  was  discoverable  at  the  time  of  any
previous application.  While we find the additional statements  rendered  in
the applicant’s behalf new, we do not find them relevant.  As the  applicant
has been previously advised, reconsideration is provided  only  where  newly
discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available  when  the
application was submitted.   Further,  the  reiteration  of  facts  we  have
previously addressed, uncorroborated personal  observations,  or  additional
arguments on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds  for  reopening
a case.  Therefore, in view of the above and  in  the  absence  of  new  and
relevant evidence, we find no basis to reconsider the applicant’s request.

____________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the additional  evidence  presented  did  not
meet  the  criteria  for  reconsideration  by  the  Board;  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 the  applicant’s  request  for
reconsideration of AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-00635 in  Executive  Session
on 17 November 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Panel Chair
      Mr. Heath Johnson, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member



The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit M. Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Jun 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit N. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Aug 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit O. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Mar 08.
      Exhibit P. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 May 10, w/atchs.





                                   ANTHONY P. REARDON
                                   Panel Chair