ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1991-02604-2

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request to:

1.  Correct his record to reflect promotion to colonel (O-6) by Special Selection Board (SSB) using a fully qualified selection standard, with a Date of Rank (DOR) consistent with SSB selection by the CY89, CY90 or CY91 board.  If not selected, the SSB should show cause why he should not be promoted.  

2.  Change his record to reflect continuation on active duty until retirement on 1 Jul 96. 

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel (O-5).  

On 27 Jan 93, and, the Board considered and denied the following requests to correct his record based on timeliness: 

1.  Selection for promotion to the temporary grade of major (O-4) with appropriate DOR by the 5 Jun 78 Temporary Major Selection Board.

2.  Selection for promotion to the temporary grade of lieutenant colonel with appropriate DOR by the 11 Aug 81 Temporary Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

3.  Selection for promotion to the grade of colonel with appropriate DOR by the Central Colonel Selection Board convened on 11 Aug 86.

4.  His military records be amended to reflect “continuous total active service federal military service (TAFMS) from 13 May 69 through date of final action consummating approval of his AFR 31-3 corrective actions.”  

On 26 Apr 94, the applicant’s request for reconsideration of the aforementioned items of relief was denied based on timeliness.  

On 1 Jul 97, the Board reconsidered and denied the applicant’s reconsideration request based on merits, for failing to meet his burden of establishing the existence of an error or injustice.  

On 15 Jun 12, the AFBCMR advised the applicant his application to correct his military records, dated 30 Dec 11, did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board.  His application, was essentially a request for reconsideration of the issues previously considered and denied by the Board, and the new evidence presented with this application was already a matter of record.  

For an accounting of the applicant’s previous requests and the rationale of the earlier decisions, see the AFBCMR Letters and Records of Proceedings at Exhibit U. 

On 25 Mar 19, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request to: 

1.  Correct his record to reflect promotion to colonel (O-6) by Special Selection Board (SSB) using a fully qualified selection standard, with a Date of Rank (DOR) consistent with SSB selection by the CY89, CY90 or CY91 board, and if not selected, the SSB should show cause why he should not be promoted.

2.  Change his record to reflect continuation on active duty until retirement on 1 Jul 96.  

He again contends the Presidents of Line Air Force Officer Promotion Boards used a computer generated list (Projected Order of Merit - POM) to identify records for rescoring that violated DoD Directive 1320.12, Commissioned Officer Promotion Program, as amended in Jun 87 and again in 1989.  In support of his reconsideration request, the applicant submitted the following new evidence: (1) AFPC/PB Advisory; dated 2 Apr 14; and (2) Xxxxxx Deposition Extracts.  He contends the 2 Apr 14 AFPC/PB advisory, by adopting [sic] the Xxxxxx deposition establishes practices that violated DoDD 1320.12 as amended in 1987 and 1989.   

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit V.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/PB recommends denying the applicant’s request for reconsideration.  His previous application in Jun 12, was rejected based on a lack of new evidence.  The only new evidence submitted by the applicant for his current application is an AFPC/PB advisory, dated 2 Apr 14, for another applicant’s case, also related to the use of the POM.  In the advisory, the then Chief, USAF Selection Board Secretariat, acknowledges the lack of historical documentation regarding the POM, and deferred to a deposition of “Mr. HGC,” extracts (attached to application).  The applicant contends this advisory with extracts provides proof Air Force practices violated DoDD 1320.12.  The 2 Apr 14 advisory with the Xxxxx deposition merely recognized the lack of available historical documents pertaining to the POM, and hardly rises to the level of new relevant evidence.  They, recommend AFPC/DP2SPP’s advice on the appropriateness of granting SSB consideration.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit W.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denying the applicant’s request for SSB consideration.  He is requesting promotion to the grade of O-6 by an SSB using a fully qualified selection standard, with a DOR consistent with SSB selection by the CY89, CY90 or CY91 board, and if not selected, the SSB should show cause why he should not be promoted.  In this matter of determining the validity of the applicant’s request for an SSB, they must rely on the opinion of other Air Force experts.  In this case, AFPC/PB, the Selection Board Secretariat, has concluded the applicant has provided no new evidence demonstrating an error or injustice; therefore, there an SSB is not warranted.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit X.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent copies of the advisory opinions to the applicant on 15 Mar 21 for comment (Exhibit Y), and the applicant’s reply was received on 31 Mar 21.  In his response, the applicant contended that AFPC/DP2SP provides no comments concerning the POM’s violations of DoDD 1320.12, therefore, the Board deliberations and decisions rests on assessing his documents against AFPC/PB’s response.  He refutes AFPC/PB’s limiting comments to the new evidence (AFPC/PB’s 2 Apr 14 Advisory, adoption [sic] of “Mr. HGC’s” deposition), being silent concerning the role the POM played in the promotion selection process; consistent with what is now a 30-year pattern of Air Force silence.  By using the POM in the promotion process, the Air Force violated the fundamental precepts of transparency, rule of law, honesty, and the Senate’s oversight authority.  His rebuttal should receive a measure of deference, as he is a primary source of contemporaneous information concerning the POM.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit Z.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/PB and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Specifically, the new evidence is insufficient to overturn the previous Board decisions.  Inclusion of the Xxxxx deposition and the 2014 advisory do not substantially change the evidence already provided via former promotion board testimonies.  It just adds more proof that POMs were used.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-1991-02604-2 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 21.

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit U:	Record of Proceedings, dated 27 Jan 93, 26 Apr 94, 1 Jul 97, Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 12.
Exhibit V:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 25 Mar 19.
Exhibit W:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/PB, dated 22 Feb 21. 
Exhibit X:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 2 Mar 21.
Exhibit Y	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 15 Mar 21.
Exhibit Z:	Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 31 Mar 21.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings pertaining to Docket Number BC-1991-02604-2, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.