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 with his PAFSC of 17D3 in accordance with AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation. 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). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His PAFSC was incorrectly assigned as 95AO on his Officer Selection Briefs (OSB). 95A0 is a Reporting Indicator (RI), not an AFSC. In August 2010, he discovered that his AFSC 33S3, Communication and Computer Systems, was converted to the new 17D3 in June 2010. During this period he was designated as a Cyber Operations officer and 17D3 appeared on his records as his secondary AFSC (2AFSC). His PAFSC should be 17D3 in accordance with AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted), Section 3.1. His 2AFSC should be 95AO in accordance with AFI 36-2101, and the Air Force Officer Classification Directory (AFOCD), dated 1 Aug 2010. An Operational AFSC carries significantly more weight than a Support AFSC or RI. This contention is supported by the fact that officers with Operational AFSCs typically have a higher percentage of promotees. He provides an example in his submission at Attachment 7. From Aug 2010 to Mar 2011, he sent electronic communiqués to numerous offices in an attempt to change his PAFSC to 17D3. The last email, from Headquarters Readiness Management Group (HQ RMG), indicated his request was denied; however, they advised he could request the Air Force Board of Corrections for Military Records (AFBCMR) correct his records. He is most qualified to serve as a Cyber Operations officer because the civilian positions he held since leaving active duty are directly related to the duties and qualifications of a Cyber Operations officer. If he returns to active duty and his civilian experience is considered, he would be best suited as a Cyber Operations officer. Additionally, it is his understanding that there are no active duty Air Liaison Officers since this is strictly a function for Category E Reserve officers. His request to have his PAFSC changed is appropriate. He has reviewed the AFI and other Air Force documents and disagrees with his leadership chain, RMG, and Servicing Personnel Office. He has requested on numerous occasions an explanation of their interpretation of the AFI and questions why their interpretation is correct. He has not received a satisfactory answer. In support of his request the applicant provides extracts from applicable Air Force instructions, documents, and handbooks; copies of Calendar Year (CY) 2010 Air Force Reserve Line and Health Professional Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Promotion Selection Boards Aeronautical Rating (Line Only), Air Force Training Certificates, electronic communiqués, officer selection briefs, and AFD-1150517-021, Instructions for Correction of OPB. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System reflects the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 27 May 1992. He is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves as a major (0-4). The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of Lt Col (0-5) by the Calendar Year (CY) 2010 and CY 2011 Central Lt Col Boards. The applicant’s DAFSC history since 1992, follows: Effective Date DAFSC 27 Jul 1992 4941 (Communication Officer) 17 Nov 1992 4941 (Communication Officer) 1 Oct 1993 33S1 (Communication Officer) 11 Apr 1994 33S1 (Communication Officer) 18 Jan 1996 33S1 (Communication Officer) 8 Feb 1999 36P3 (Personnel Officer) 19 Sep 1999 36P1 (Personnel Officer) 15 May 2002 95A0(USAF Admissions Liaison Officer) 1 Jun 2009 95A0(USAF Admissions Liaison Officer) ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/AlK recommends denial. A1K states, the PAFSC is to be the AFSC in which the individual is most qualified to perform duty. The applicant’s military record reflects he has not performed duty as a 17D3 for over 10 years, and as such, in accordance with AFI 36-2101, paragraph 4.1.2.1.3, the AFSC of 17D3 should be withdrawn due to lack of recent performance. Additionally, as a point of clarification, his assigned Reporting Identifier (RI) of 95AO is awarded as the PAFSC because this is the Air Force practice used to award, designate and denote qualifications in the same manner as an awarded AFSC. Specifically, "Reporting Identifiers (RI) are established primarily to identify conditions or jobs where a specific specialty description is not practical, such as a patient or prisoner.” However, RIs are also awarded or designated to denote qualifications or to report a condition the same way AFSCs are awarded. Such is the case for his current assignment and the accompanying award of the RI 95AO. The complete AFRC/AlK evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with the advisory opinion that he is not qualified to perform duty as a 17D3. He has performed the duty of a 17D3 officer for his current unit and has completed 17D3 training. In particular he completed the USAF Cyber Operations Transition Course, and earned certifications as a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), Certified Information Security Manager (CISM), and Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA). This military and civilian training directly relates to the 17D3 career field. In regards to the advisory opinion that AFSC 17D3 should be withdrawn due to lack of recent performance, he affirms that since he never requested withdrawal of his AFSC this does not apply to him and does not reference a lack of performance criteria. Regarding, A1K’s comments stating it is the Air Force Practice to award, designate, and denote qualifications for RI’s in the same manner as an awarded AFSC, A1K mistakenly combines four sections of AFI 36-2101 when making their statement. He agrees that he has been awarded the Rl 95A0 and with the award of this Rl the 95A0 identifier can be assigned to his (2AFSC) or third AFSC (3AFSC). Additionally, the 95A0 identifier can be assigned to his DAFSC, which is defined in AFI 36-2101 as, "The AFSC denoting the specialty in which the individual is performing duty." He disagrees with the implication that an awarded Rl can be assigned as an individual's PAFSC. His DAFSC of 95A0 is correct because that is the duty that he is currently performing, but his PAFSC is not correct and should be 17D3 because this is what he is most qualified to perform. He expounds on additional points he would like the Board to consider in his response. He summarizes by stating that he has been awarded the 17D3 AFSC and has maintained his qualifications as a 17D3 officer. This was confirmed by the AFRC 17D Career Field Functional Manager in an email communiqué. The OSBs used for promotion boards V0510B and V0511B were incorrect when they reflected his PAFSC as 95A0 and did not provide him with the best chance for promotion. Additionally, he feels the overall recommendation of “Promote” on the PRF for promotion boards V0510B and V011B was impacted by this error and by his attempts to get this error corrected through his chain of command. He requests the Board approve the requested corrections to his records and that his records for V0510B and V011B promotion boards be reevaluated by a SPB in accordance with AFI 36-2501. His complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPD recommends denial of the applicant's request for a corrected OSB, and SSB consideration for CY10 and CY11 Lt Col Promotion Boards. If an appropriately documented package for correction of the PRFs is submitted, it can be addressed at that time. DPB states, since AFRC/A1K has recommended denial of the applicant's request to change his PAFSC, there is no change warranted to either OSB. Had this been a recommendation to change his PAFSC, the change to the OSB would not have been sufficient to warrant special selection board (SSB) consideration. In accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, any change or correction to a PRF should go through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant will require new PRFs signed by the senior rater of record when the original PRFs were prepared. The senior rater will also need to prepare a memorandum explaining why the original PRF was in error. While the AFBCMR could act on the applicant's request, his application is lacking justification for replacing PRFs and is lacking the replacement PRFs. There is no justification for a SSB; the record has had no correction. A change in the PAFSC on an OSB would not generate a need for a SSB. The record of performance has not changed; all officer performance reports, training reports and PRFs are in the same condition as when viewed by the original boards. If the applicant does eventually have his PRFs corrected, his record would be evaluated for SSB consideration at that time. The applicant is currently in Reserve Sanctuary with a mandatory separation date of 1 Jun 2014. He will continue to meet promotion boards until his separation. The complete AFRC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION He agree that if the Air Force had agreed with his assessment that his PAFSC was incorrect and thus his OSB was incorrect then that alone would not be sufficient to warrant a SSB. According to AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, Paragraph 9.2, only Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) or a federal court can direct an officer for consideration by a SSB. Additionally, Paragraph 9.2.1. states the AFBCMR can grant a SSB based on an administrative error. This is the reason he is pursuing this change through the AFBCMR process. He also agrees that new Promotion Recommendation Forms will need to be re-accomplished for promotion boards V0510B and V0511B. He disagrees that these forms need to be processed in accordance with AFI 36-2401. He also disagrees that his application is lacking justification to replace the PRFs. If the AFBCMR disagrees with his argument then the PRFs are correct. If the AFBCMR agrees with his argument that his PAFSC is incorrect in his records, then his Senior Rater based the overall promotion recommendation for both PRFs on bad information and thus should be provided the opportunity to correct them as directed by the AFBCMR and outside of the AFI 36-2401 process. His senior rater should have had the ability to take his operational AFSC of 17D3 into consideration in deciding the promotion recommendation of "Definitely Promote" versus a recommendation of "Promote" on both PRFs. To date, he still holds the 17D3 AFSC (see attached Duty Verification Brief) despite the fact that he has not served as a 17D3 officer for several years and that this AFSC should have been withdrawn. His AFSC still has not been withdrawn. He is being denied the benefit of having an operational AFSC as his PAFSC. If the Air Force does not view him as a 17D3 officer, then they should withdraw his AFSC so he does not need to maintain the qualifications of that AFSC. He is a fully qualified 17D3 officer and would like his records to reflect his qualifications and his records be presented to his Senior Rater and Promotion Boards appropriately. His complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ 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 warranting corrective action. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe his record is inaccurate or was inaccurate when it was considered by the selection boards in question. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that the PAFSC reflected on the applicant’s OSB was not in error, but in fact, correctly coincides with the duty position he was assigned to since 2002. Further, we find the information provided is insufficient to conclude his promotion opportunities were impacted by the primary AFSC indicated in his record or that his AFSC designations inhibited the promotion boards ability to render a fair and equitable decision as to his ability to serve in the next higher grade. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice in this case. Accordingly, we find no basis to recommend granting relief sought in this application. 4. 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 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 21 Jun 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-04145: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/A1K, dated 21 Dec 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Dec 2011. Exhibit E.