RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01972
                       INDEX CODE:

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) be corrected on his Officer
Selection Brief (OSB) to read “32E4” versus “32E3G."

2.  He be considered for promotion to  the  grade  of  major  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year  1998B  (CY98B)  Major  Board
Below-the-Promotion Zone.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of the CY98B promotion board his OSB presented  an  incorrect
DAFSC.  Instead of  a  DAFSC  of  “32E4”  (headquarters  level  CE  staff
officer), his records indicated “32E3G” (base level CE officer).

Applicant states that incorrect authorization  data  prevented  personnel
actions to correct his records prior to the CY98 Major Board.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  Single  Uniform  Retrieval
Format (SURF),  Individual  Duty  Assignment  (IDA)  RIP,  Unit  Manpower
Document (UMD), AF Form 709 (Promotion Recommendation  Form),  and  other
documentation.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in  the  grade
of captain.

He was considered and nonselected by  the  CY98B  (6  April  1998)  Major
Selection Board, as a below the zone candidate.

Applicant’s OSB before the CY98B promotion  board  did  not  reflect  the
DAFSC “32E4."

On 17 April 1998 and 22 June 1998 the Unit  Personnel  Manpower  Document
(UPMR) and the UMD were corrected to reflect the correct DAFSC of “32E4."

OPR profile since 1993 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 31 Mar 93        Meets Standards (MS)
                 30 Mar 94        (MS)
                 31 Mar 95        (MS)
                 19 Dec 95        (MS)
                 19 Dec 96        (MS)
            #    19 Dec 97        (MS)
                 19 Dec 98        (MS)

Top Report for the CY98B Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Reports and Queries Team, Directorate of Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1,
reviewed this application  and  states  that  when  applicant’s  OSB  was
prepared on 24 March 1998, the applicant was sitting  in  a  position  of
“32E3G” as defined by his unit’s Unit Personnel Manpower Document (UPMR).
 He actively pursued this issue through USAFE and it was determined  that
this authorization  was  miscoded;  therefore,  the  UPMR  and  UMD  were
corrected to reflect the correct  DAFSC  of  “32E4."   They  defer  their
recommendation to HQ AFPC/DPPPAB.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Appeals and  SSB  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA reviewed the application and  states  that  the
applicant  provided  e-mail  excerpts  from  HQ  USAFE/CEI/CEO  officials
indicating  they  had  discovered  the  applicant’s  duty  position   was
erroneously coded “32E3G” in July 1997 and request USAFE/XPMRS change  it
to “32E4” on both the UMD and UPMR.  The officials noted  the  DAFSC  was
still erroneously coded in January 1998 and again  requested  USAFE/XPMRS
update their manning documents.  The applicant discovered  the  error  in
March and contacted his unit commanders support staff  (CSS),  requesting
an update prior to the CY98B promotion board.  On 16 March 1998, the  CSS
requested a change to the applicant’s DAFSC  through  Personnel  Concepts
III (PCII), which rejected because  the  applicant’s  duty  position  was
coded as “32E3G” on the  UMD/UPMR.   The  CSS  attempted  to  update  the
applicant’s DAFSC in the personnel data system in March, but it  rejected
because the DAFSC assigned to the position number on  the  UPMR  did  not
match the DAFSC they were attempting to award  the  applicant.   Although
headquarters officials requested a change to applicant’s duty position on
the UMD and UPMR prior to the 98B board in July 1997, the  DAFSC  changes
were not completed until 17 April 1998 and 22 June  1998.   The  AF  Form
2096 awarding the applicant the “32E3E” DAFSC was not prepared  until  25
June 1998, some two months after the date CY98B  board  was  held.   They
therefore,  believe  the  applicant’s  DAFSC  was  correct  when  he  was
considered for promotion to the grade of major and his request is without
merit.  If the applicant felt the erroneous DAFSC to be important to  his
promotion consideration, he could have elected to write a letter  to  the
board president.  They find no record he wrote such a letter.  They agree
the “32E4” DAFSC denoting headquarters level was not present on  the  OSB
(and it should not have been in April),  they  note  the  CY98  OSB  does
reflect “CMHQ” in the assignment history portion of his OSB.   The  CY98B
board was aware he was serving at the headquarters level and factored  it
into their original promotion assessment of  the  applicant.   Therefore,
they recommend denial of applicant's request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached
at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 12 October 1998, for review and response within 30 days.  As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by  existing  law
or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force
and adopt their rationale as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________



THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 February 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                  Ms. Olga Crerar, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 18 Aug 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 21 Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Oct 98.





                                HENRY ROMO JR.
                                Panel Chair