RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03556
		INDEX CODE 100.05
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reclassified as an intelligence technician (1N031) or at least be awarded the equivalent Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) as a secondary AFSC. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He separated from the Army in Aug 96. He was an intelligence analyst (96B20) for six years. He entered the Air Force on 31 Jan 02 and was classified as surveillance (1C531). He went to technical school for this AFSC and should be reclassified.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was honorably released from active duty with the Army on 31 Aug 96. His DD Form 214 reflects his primary specialty was intelligence analyst (96B20) for six years and one month. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the official documents provided in the applicant’s submission (Exhibit A) and in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAC indicates the applicant substantiated his primary specialty at the time of separation from the Army was Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 96B20, intelligence analyst. This is convertible to the three-skill level for AFSC 1N031, but only after review and approval of the Air Force Career Field Manager. 
Reclassification is not appropriate.  According to AFI 36-2101, enlistees will be awarded the control AFSC in which enlisted.  Additionally, applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects he separated from active Army service on 31 Aug 96. According to AFI 36-2101, a three-skill level AFSC is withdrawn after two years due to lack of recent performance. Since the applicant was properly and accurately classified and is not authorized to possess a secondary AFSC, recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be reclassified or awarded a secondary AFSC. The 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. The applicant was classified as an intelligence technician when he served in the Army; however, he has been away from this career field for over five years. 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 and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought   

_________________________________________________________________

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 12 June 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Vice Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03556 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAC, dated 6 Dec 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.