RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-03129
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be  given  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  by  the
Calendar Year 1997C  (CY97C)  Central  Major  Selection  Board,  which
convened on 20 Jun 97.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) was not in his records prior  to
the convening of the CY97C Major Board.

His Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared  for  consideration
by the CY97C Major Board was not in his records prior to the convening
of the board.

The annotation on  his  PRF  unfairly  highlighted  his  PRF  and  the
correction could be misconstrued to be a negative correction.

His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) on his  PRF  is  K12R3B  and
should be L12R3B.

The DAFSCs for the duty positions while assigned to the 55th Operation
Support Squadron (55 OSS) were incorrect.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies  of  his  PRF,
extracts from an Inspector General report, and his  appeal  under  the
provisions of AFI  36-2401,  which  included  copies  of  his  Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs), duty history, and supportive statements.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force,
on 10 Sep 86 and voluntarily ordered to extended active  duty  on  the
same date.

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant retired for length of service, effective 1 Jul  00.
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) was 18 Dec 79.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1989 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      14 Apr 89  Meets Standards
      14 Apr 90  Meets Standards
      28 Aug 90  Meets Standards
      28 Aug 91  Meets Standards
       7 May 92  Meets Standards
       7 May 93  Meets Standards
       7 May 94  Meets Standards
       7 May 95  Meets Standards
       7 May 96  Meets Standards
  #  15 Apr 97   Meets Standards
 ##   6 Jan 98   Meets Standards
###  14 Aug 98   Meets Standards
      14 Aug 99  Meets Standards

  # Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of major by the CY97C (20 Jun 97) Major Board.

 ## Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of major by the CY98B (1 Jun 98) Major Board.

### Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of major by the CY99A (19 Apr 99) Major Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assignment Information Systems Branch, AFPC/DPAPS,  reviewed  this
application  and  addressed  the  assignment  history  issue.    DPAPS
indicated that without valid source documents, they nonconcur with the
applicant’s request to change his  DAFSCs.   However,  they  indicated
that if the decision is to grant the relief sought,  the  OPR  closing
7 May 94 should have the DAFSC and duty title changed first, then have
a follow-up in the PDS.  The same applies to the OPRs closing 7 May 95
and 6 Jan 98 with the exception of the duty titles.  These duty titles
are correct on the OPRs and in the PDS--their  only  limitation  being
the 31 spaces allotted for this data field.  By  changing  the  source
documents first, it would preclude any future mismatches  between  the
source documents and the PDS.

A complete copy of the DPAPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Evaluation Board Branch, AFPC/DPPPEB,  reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial of the applicant’s request to change the  DAFSC
on the PRF.  According to DPPPEB, the original PRF should stand  since
there is no evidence that the applicant received anything but fair and
equitable treatment in the PRF process.   If  the  AFBCMR  decides  to
allow a change to the DAFSC, this  would  be  a  minor  administrative
change that would not warrant an SSB.

A complete copy of the DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Appeals and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and
recommended denial.  A complete copy of the  DPPPA  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished a response  and
additional documentary evidence, which are attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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
offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  No evidence has been presented which
has shown to our satisfaction that the AFAM and PRF were  not  in  his
records prior to the  convening  of  the  CY97C  board,  his  PRF  was
unfairly annotated, or  that  his  DAFSCs  were  in  error,  with  the
exception of the DAFSC of Q12R3J, with an effective date of 1 Sep  92,
which should have been M1565L.  It appears that  the  DAFSC  has  been
corrected administratively.  However, we  believe  that  this  was  an
innocuous error not warranting SSB  consideration.   In  view  of  the
above, and  in  the  absence  of  sufficient  evidence  to  support  a
determination  that  the  applicant’s  record  before   the   original
selection board was so inaccurate or misleading  that  the  board  was
unable to make a reasonable decision concerning his  promotability  in
relationship to his peers, 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 2 Aug 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPS, dated 10 Jan 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 20 Jan 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 28 Jan 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Feb 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 8 May 00.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair