RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01367
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 October 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for continuation to 30 years commissioned service  by
the 2004 lieutenant colonel Selective Continuation Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not considered because they only considered officers in  career
fields  less  than  95%  manned.   Officers  in  21B  positions   were
considered but officers in 62E positions  were  not  considered.   His
PAFSC and DAFSC were 62E but should have been 21B.  He was working  as
a Maintenance Officer (21B) but coded as a Development Engineer (62E).
 His DAFSC and PAFSC should have been 21B and his  2AFSC  should  have
been 62E.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his AF Form 2096
and a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Based on available evidence, the  Officer  Pre-Selection  Brief  (OPB)
sent to the applicant approximately four  months  prior  to  the  FY03
(October 2002), FY04 (October 2003)  and  FY05  (October  2004)  USAFR
Colonel Selected Reserve Promotion Board all demonstrated his AFSCs at
62E, Developmental Engineering.  His Assignment  History  Duty  Titles
reflect Aeronautical Engineer since 1 July 1992, with the latest entry
as 1 October 2000.  The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) presented to the
FY03, FY04, and FY05 USAFR Colonel Selected  Reserve  Promotion  Board
all demonstrated his AFSCs at  62E,  Developmental  Engineering,  with
identical Duty Titles.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB  recommends  denial.   The  CY2004   Lt   Colonel   Selective
Continuation Board considered officers whose primary, duty, secondary,
or tertiary Air Force  Specialty  (PAFSC,  DAFSC,  2AFSC,  3AFSC)  was
manned at 95% or less. The applicant’s PAFSC, DAFSC,  and  2AFSC  were
not manned  at  95%  or  less,  therefore  he  was  not  eligible  for
consideration.  The applicant does not have a 3AFSC.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a statement saying he began  working  primarily
as a Maintenance Officer (21B) in the fall of 2002.  His PAFSC  should
have been changed to the 21B career field at that time. He agrees that
they could have made an effort to rework his AFSC, but at the time the
Senior IMA leadership and he made no effort to do so because they  did
not believe it made any difference.   ARPC  briefed  them  at  an  IMA
Conference that the Air Force was short of engineers; continuation for
a 62E appeared to be a positive.  He was still doing some  engineering
functions in addition to his maintenance duties so they just  left  it
alone.  Had they had  any  idea  that  the  continuation  board  would
consider the PAFSC, DAFSC, and 2AFSC, they would have taken action.

The referenced advisory opinion points out that  his  service  history
shows 62E, Developmental  Engineering  and  that  the  AF  Form  2096,
Classification/On-the-Job Training Action was  accomplished  in  April
2005 to correct his AFSC and Duty Title after he had  been  considered
by three promotion boards and not considered for  continuation.   That
is correct and that reflects the issue here that they had no idea that
a 21B would make a difference to be continued until  after  the  board
results were published.  The referenced letter also  states  that  the
2096 correction has not been updated in MilPDS  as  of  1  June  2005.
Their senior leadership is following up to ensure the correct AFSC  is
updated in MilPDS.

The fact is that he has been  working  as  a  21B.   In  addition,  he
recently completed a deployment to Iraq and he is ready to return.  He
believes the reality of his effort as a 21B  Maintenance  Officer  (as
reflected in the 2096) should carry more weight in this decision  than
the failure of his records to reflect that reality at the time of  the
continuation board.

The commander submitted a statement saying he  wants  to  assure  that
this is not an effort by the applicant to just modify  some  paperwork
to get two more years of reserve duty.  He has been a  very  effective
maintenance office for the past three years  as  well  as  in  Baghdad
where he recently deployed in support of the Global War on  Terrorism.
He believes  he  is  a  legitimate  candidate  for  and  requests  his
continuation as a 21B Maintenance Officer.

The applicant's response and the commander’s statement are attached at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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  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  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   As
stated, the applicant  made  no  effort  prior  to  any  promotion  or
continuation board to update his AFSCs or his Duty History to  reflect
what he states today is the correct information.  Due diligence on the
part  of  the  officer  would  have  identified  and  corrected   this
information well in advance.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no 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 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 31 January 2006, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:


                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member
                 Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-01367 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 10 Jun 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Jul 05 and
                       Commander’s Statement dated 12 Jul 05.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair