RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03011
            INDEX CODE 131.01
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The duty history for the 22 June 1997 entry on the  Officer  Selection
Brief (OSB) reviewed by the Calendar  Year  1998B  (CY98B)  Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection  Board  should  be  changed  to  “Operations
Officer,  338th  Training  Squadron,”  and  he  be   given   promotion
consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B board.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records incorrectly listed a duty history entry for 22  June  1997
as “Flt Comdr, Training Technology, 81st Training  Support  Squadron,”
when it should have reflected the requested title.  Additionally,  the
HQ AETC aggregate board for “Definitely Promote (DP)” considered a PRF
with an erroneous duty description.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major with a date of rank of 1 September 1994.

He was considered but not selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY98B board, which convened on 1 June  1998.
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by  the  CY98B  board
reflected a promotion recommendation of “Promote.”  According  to  the
advisory opinions (Exhibits C, D, and  E  with  Addendum),  amendments
were made to both the OSB and the PRF before the CY98B board convened.
According to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s  advisory  (Exhibit  D),  the  CY98  AETC
Management Level Review (CY98B) president approved the  corrected  PRF
and determined the “Promote”  recommendation  was  still  appropriate.
Further, the PRF reviewed by the CY98B board did reflect  the  correct
job description, i.e., the one desired by the applicant.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained  in  the  letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the  Air  Force.   Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Reports &  Queries  Team,  HQ  AFPC/DPAPS1,  reviewed  this
appeal and advises that the OSB that met the CY98B board was  correct.
However, since that time his  records  had  been  changed  to  reflect
incorrect data. The Personnel Data System (PDS) was updated to  change
the information back to  “Training  Squadron”  to  match  the  Officer
Performance Report on file.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE,  asserts  that
AETC/DP followed the correct procedures regarding the PRF and the  MLR
for the CY98B board. When the senior rater  discovered  the  incorrect
job description, a new PRF was submitted to  AETC  for  the  MLR.  The
president approved the corrected  PRF  and  determined  the  promotion
recommendation [of “Promote”] was still appropriate. Therefore, an SSB
is not warranted on the basis of the applicant’s PRF or  the  MLR  and
denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Appeals &SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, provided an advisory and  then
an addendum  correcting  paragraph  d.  of  their  original  advisory.
[Paragraph e. of the original advisory was essentially driven  by  the
erroneous paragraph d. and is therefore also somewhat  incorrect---See
Addendum.]  In summary, the 22 June 1997 duty title entry, “Operations
Officer,” was present  on  the  OSB  prepared  on  29  May  1998  and,
therefore, considered by the CY98B board. The contested duty title was
also present on the applicant’s most recent Officer Performance Report
(OPR). Thus, the board members were aware of the contested duty  title
and appropriately factored it into their promotion assessment  of  the
applicant. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation, and its addendum, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the  Air  Force  evaluations,  and  addendum,  were
forwarded to the applicant on 21 December 1998 and  17  February  1999
for review and comment 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.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we  are  not
persuaded he should be given consideration  by  SSB  with  an  altered
CY98B OSB. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do  not
find these assertions, in and by themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive
to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. It  appears  that
the PRF reviewed by the MLR and the CY98B  selection  board  reflected
the correct job description and that the CY98B OSB duty title entry in
question was also correct. The evidence would indicate  the  applicant
received full and fair consideration at all levels. We therefore agree
with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden  of  having  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice. In view of the above, we recommend this case be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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 17 August 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 15 Oct 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 30 Nov 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 4 Dec 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 9 Dec 98, and
                 Addendum, dated 12 Feb 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 21 Dec 98 and 17 Feb 99.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair