RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03444

  					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) be updated to reflect 
his certification as an F-16 Evaluator Pilot.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Two of his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) inaccurately list 
his DAFSC with a “K” prefix denoting instructor pilot, instead 
of “Q” prefix denoting examiner/evaluator status.  During the 
period of the OPRs, he served as an examiner/evaluator for 4.1 
hours of flight time, as annotated on the copy of the Aviation 
Resource Management System (ARMS) printout he provided with his 
application.  His OPRs dated 18 May 11 and 1 Mar 12 document 
flight examiner/evaluator status in paragraph 2, line 4.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty as a Major 
(Maj/O-4).  

On 18 Aug 14, Aeronautical Order (PA) Aviation Service documents 
the applicant’s DAFSC as “K 011E3 B”.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAL recommends disapproval.  The officer’s assignment team 
reviewed his request and referenced the Air Force Officer 
Classification Directory (AFOCD).  In accordance with Section I 
of the AFOCD, a “Q” prefix is awarded to members in a “Q” coded 
position and performing flight examiner duties.  The applicant’s 
2011 OPR stated he was Chief of Stan/Evaluation and the Chief F-
16 Instructor/Evaluation Pilot in Section II.  However, the 
position he occupied was position 1M0071998 with an authorized 
DAFSC of K11E3G.  His 2012 OPR stated that he continued to be an 
F-16 Evaluation Pilot however; he also continued to occupy the 
same position number.  Despite the work he did as an evaluator 
pilot, he never occupied a position with an authorized DAFSC of 
Q11XX.   

The complete AFPC/DPAL evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case, to include the Aviation Resource Management 
System data; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAL, dated 15 Sep 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 14.