ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04145 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) of 95A0 (USAF Admissions Liaison Officer) be changed to reflect 17D3 (Cyber Operations). 2. He be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col, 0-5) for cycles V0510B in 2010 and V0511B in 2011. 3. His Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF) for the promotion boards referenced above, be re-accomplished by his senior rater with a consideration of changing the overall recommendation to Definitely Promote (DP). ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 Jun 2012, the Board considered and denied a similar appeal. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I (with Exhibits A through H). In an undated letter, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. He states that the new evidence he provides directly supports the core of his argument and was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. In the request, he asked the Air Force to clarify the use of Reporting Identifier (RI) 95AO as an officer's PAFSC. The Air Force Military Classification Development Branch (AFPC/DPSIDC), stated that RI 95AO cannot be assigned as an officer's PAFSC. Therefore the Officer Selection Briefs (OSB) considered by the promotion boards had a negative impact on his promotion opportunities. Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) case, Docket Number BC-2002- 02848 had similar facts wherein the PAFSC was not correct and negatively impacted the officer's promotion. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of a FOIA response, electronic communiqués, U.S. District Court Opinion and AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-02848. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. After again reviewing this application along with the additional documentation provided in support of his appeal, we do not believe the applicant’s PRFs should be changed. We note the applicant’s PAFSC was incorrectly listed on his officer selection brief when his records met the CY10 and CY11 Line and Health Professions Lt Col Promotion Boards. However, as previously pointed out by ARPC/DPB in their memorandum dated 4 May 2012, when requesting a change or correction to a PRF, new PRFs signed by the senior rater of record when the original PRFs were prepared and a memorandum explaining why the PRFs are in error is required. Additionally, if applicable, the memorandum should also explain why the senior rater believes the applicant’s promotion recommendations should be changed from promote to definitely promote. Should the applicant provide this information we would be willing to reconsider his request. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary we find no basis to recommend grating this portion of the applicant’s request. 2. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant partial relief. In this respect, we note the applicant has provided additional information from the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) that corroborates his assertions that RI 95AO should not be assigned as his PAFSC. Therefore, we recommend his PAFSC be changed as requested. The applicant also asserts, in essence, that based on the error with his PAFSC that his appeal is similar to AFBCMR BC-2002-02848 and that relief is warranted using the same rationale for an SSB. We agree. While it cannot be stated with certainty the error with the applicant’s PAFSC caused his nonselections for promotion, we believe any uncertainty regarding the effect of this error should be resolved through the SSB process. Therefore, to avoid the appearance the applicant did not receive fair and equitable promotion consideration with a complete and correct record we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 3. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer Selection Brief viewed by the Calendar Year 2010 (CY10) Line and Health Professions Lt Col Promotion Selection Board (V0510B) and the CYll Line and Health Professions Lt Col Promotion Selection Board (V0511B) be corrected under the AFSC Data to change the PAFSC from “95AO” to “17D3.” It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of Lt Col by a Special Selection Board for the CY10 Line and Health Professions Lt Col Promotion Selection Board (V0510B) and the CYll Line and Health Professions Lt Col Promotion Selection Board (V0511B) and any subsequent boards in which the corrections were not a matter of record. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 Feb 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the record as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2011- 04145: Exhibit I. Record of Proceedings, dated 13 Nov 2012, w/Exhibits. Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. Panel Chair