RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02401
                       INDEX CODE:  131.01

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the  Calendar  Year  1998
(CY98B) Major Promotion Board be corrected to show a correction to his  Duty
Air Force Specialty Code  (DAFSC)  and  Organization  under  the  Assignment
History block.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record was inaccurate when he met the CY98 promotion board.

The second line duty entry was showing a DAFSC of  “36P3”  and  Organization
of “Air Force Wing”, it should have read DAFSC of  “36P4”  and  Organization
of “Air Force, NAF”.

He states that these errors created confusion for the  selection  panel  and
did not reflect the level of his assigned position.  It also  misrepresented
the level of responsibility and the type of duties performed.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,  OSB,
Officer Pre-selection Brief (OPB), 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.

Applicant’s OSB present at the CY96A (4 March 1996), CY97C  (16 June  1997),
and CY98B (6 April 1998) promotion board, under Assignment History  did  not
reflect the Organization Location.

The Personnel Data System (PDS) has been updated to reflect 16th  Air  Force
NAF Aviano, Italy effective 940401.

OPR profile since 1990 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 29 Mar 92        Meets Standards
                 29 Mar 93        Meets Standards
                 19 Dec 93        Meets Standards
                 19 Dec 94        Meets Standards
                 19 Dec 95        Meets Standards
                 14 Jul 96        Meets Standards
                 14 Jul 97        Meets Standards
                 14 Jul 98        Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Reports and Queries Team, Directorate of  Assignments,  HQ  AFPC/DPAPS1,
reviewed the application and states that  based  on  the  OPR  contained  in
member’s selection record, they  disagree  with  applicant’s  request.   The
DAFSC for the period  of  20 December  1993  through  19  December  1994  is
documented as “36P3”.  The applicant needs to have his  OPR  for  this  time
period corrected before they can concur with his claim.  They  defer  to  HQ
AFPC/DPPPAB.

Applicant addresses the Organization as being “Air Force Wing  and  no  Duty
Location showing at all.  The OSB does not apply  the  Organization  Number,
however Organization Kind and Type are shown.   They  concur  that  member’s
Organization is in fact in error by having the Organization Type  blank  and
have updated the Personnel Data System (PDS) to reflect 16th Air  Force  NAF
Aviano, Italy dated 940401.

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

The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of  Personnel  Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this  application  and  states  that  HQ
AFPC/DPAPS1  concurred  with  the  applicant’s  request  and   updated   the
personnel data system to  reflect  “16th  Air  Force,  NAF,  Aviano,  Italy,
effective 1 April 1994, they do not believe  the  applicant  should  receive
SSB consideration with the corrected  OSB.   They  obtained  copies  of  the
applicant’s OSBs used by the CY96A and the  CY97C  central  major  selection
board when he was considered below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) to the grade  of
major.  The second entry in the organization section of both  his  OSBs  are
“MISSION SUPPORT, SQ, AVIANO.”  That means the applicant  should  have  been
aware of the discrepancies he notes in this appeal  since  he  received  his
Officer Pre-selection Brief  (OPB)  for  his  first  BPZ  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of major in 1996.  According to their records,  those
OPBs were forwarded to the military personnel  flights  (MPFs)  25  November
1995, and should  have  been  distributed  to  all  of  those  eligible  for
promotion consideration approximately  10  days  later,  sometime  in  early
December 1995.  They do not believe he showed the proper diligence prior  to
his consideration to ensure his record was correct.

The applicant also contends the 1 April 1994 Duty Air Force  Specialty  Code
(DAFSC) on his OSB should be “36P4” instead of “36P3”.  They do  not  agree.
The OPR for the  time  period  reflects  DAFSC  “36P3”.   If  the  applicant
believes the DAFSC on his OPR is incorrect, he must  request  correction  of
the OPR.  The DAFSC on the applicant’s evaluation report is not  related  to
his qualification status.  It corresponds directly to the position  he  held
while assigned to the unit based on the  Unit  Personnel  Management  Roster
(UPMR).  If the applicant believes the DAFSC on the  OPR  is  erroneous,  he
must provide letters of support from each member of  his  rating  chain  and
include a copy of the portion of the UPMR  bearing  his  name  and  position
number he held while assigned that would support his  contention  the  DAFSC
is erroneous.  If the applicant is able to obtain  supporting  documentation
and the Board grants the applicant’s request to  change  the  DAFSC  on  the
OPR,  they  would  have  not  objected  to  HQ  AFPC/DPAPS1   changing   the
information in the Headquarters  Air  Force  (HAF)  file.   This  would  not
constitute a material error  that  would  warrant  SSB  consideration.   The
DAFSC on applicants CY97C OSB improperly reflected “36P4” but  the  OSB  for
the CY96A OSB correctly reflected “36P3.”

They  recommend  this  appeal  be  time-barred.   If,  however,  the  AFBCMR
considers, then 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:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  states  that  HQ  AFPC
assumes that he  lacked  proper  diligence  in  attempting  to  correct  his
record.  He was aware of the errors in his record prior to January 1998  and
did take action to correct them.  He states he  has  personally  experienced
the frustration of many military members who have tried  to  work  with  the
personnel system to correct their record.  He does not understand why  these
errors were never corrected with the many attempts to do so.   Why  must  he
make many trips to his supporting  Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF),  then
make follow-ups via e-mail and phone calls,  still  with  no  results?   The
system is not responsive and this is not fair treatment  of  our  Air  Force
members.  He believes he should not be punished for the  failure  of  others
or a system that is in need of change.  He asks that the  Board  acknowledge
the unfairness of his situation  and  correct  the  injustice  done  to  his
chance for promotion.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 16 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 23 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 8 Oct 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Oct 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Nov 98, w/atch.





                                CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                Panel Chair