RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03001
INDEX CODE: 111.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) on his Officer Performance
Report (OPR) closing 31 Jan 94 be changed from “K11H3C” to “T11H3C.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The DAFSC on the contested report was incorrect. His unit was
considered an operational unit until becoming a part of the Air
Education and Training Command (AETC). When the reorganization
occurred, the personnel specialists at his station were not aware of
the different prefixes for instructor pilots serving tours of duty at
the schoolhouse as opposed to those assigned to operational units.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copies of the
contested report, personnel data, and an extract from an Air Force
manual.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Jan 96. His Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 6 Feb 84.
Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1989 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
15 Dec 89 Meets Standards
18 Mar 89 Meets Standards
18 Mar 90 Meets Standards
18 Mar 91 Meets Standards
18 Mar 92 Meets Standards
31 Jan 93 Meets Standards
* 31 Jan 94 Meets Standards
31 Jan 95 Meets Standards
31 Jan 96 Meets Standards
31 Jan 97 Meets Standards
31 Jan 98 Meets Standards
* Contested Report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Reports and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this
application and indicated that, because an individual’s DAFSC should
be the same as the AFSC of the position occupied, they recommend the
applicant research whether the AFSCs of the positions were changed at
the same time the MAJCOM was changed by Manpower, or whether a
backdated change in the Manpower file occurred. If the position was
changed to a T11H3C, the incumbent should have also had their DAFSC
changed.
DPAPS1 noted that, concerning the applicant’s duty history, there were
numerous discrepancies that were not addressed in his appeal, and made
several changes.
A complete copy of the DPAPS1 evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. According to DPPPA, the applicant has not proven
the DAFSC on the contested OPR is incorrect. The DAFSC reflected on
an individual’s evaluation report is dictated by the AFSC on the duty
position the individual is approved for and assigned against on the
closeout date of the report.
DPPPA indicated that the applicant has provided no material evidence
confirming he was approved for an assigned against a position coded
with the DAFSC “T11H3C” on the closeout date of the contested report.
In order to prove his contentions, DPPPA suggested that the applicant
obtain a copy of the Unit Personnel Management Roster (UPMR), or other
official data product, dated for that specific period of time, with
his name assigned to the duty position coded with the desired AFSC.
A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21
Dec 98 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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 probable 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 AFPC/DPPPA
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Other
than his own assertions, no evidence has been presented which would
lead us to believe that the DAFSC on the contested report was
erroneous. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling 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 probable 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 1 Jul 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Oct 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 30 Nov 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 7 Dec 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Dec 98.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the reviewer for the OPR closing 31 Dec 94 signed as Commander of the USAF Air Warfare Center so “Center” is the correct duty command level for this duty entry. This OPR clearly shows that the duty title was incorrect on the OPB for the 950701 entry; therefore, DPAPS1 changed the duty title for this entry in...
DPAPS1 stated that applicant’s OPR closing 20 Oct 97 reflects the DAFSC as “62E3G.” This is mirrored under his duty history segment on the PDS and is correct based on the above mentioned OPR. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant stated that if a change to the OPR is necessary to change his duty history, then he concurs with AFPC/DPAPS1’s recommendation...
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Reports and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the OPRs and the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) accurately reflected the duty titles contained on source document OPRs for duty history entries of 960601 and 980206. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his...
At the time applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B board, his OSB reflected his duty title as Commander, DDD Letterkenny, effective 26 Jun 97. The next duty entry of 960613 was changed to reflect information on the next OPR of record. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Supply Officer Assignments, AFPC/DPASL, reviewed this application and indicated that regarding applicant’s request to change his...
The inconsistencies between the duty titles on his Office Performance Reports (OPRs) and those listed on his Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) prior to his consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0498B central board have been administratively corrected. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory...
He also believes he may have been nonselected because of a perception among the board members that he spent too much time at Kirtland AFB, NM. DPPPA stated that it was the applicant’s responsibility to notify the board of the circumstances surrounding his extended tenure at one location, and the omission of the duty title effective 18 Dec 93 from his OSB if he believed them important to his promotion consideration. ...
DPASA stated that when the applicant’s record met the selection board he was not a corps member, thus, no error occurred (Exhibit D). Therefore, the board had the correct information in evidence when his record was considered by the P0598B board. We noted that the appropriate Air Force office has made the requested duty title corrections to applicant’s assignment history.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, stated that based on the applicant’s selection folder, the duty titles and effective dates in question were in error on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel selection board. DPPPA noted the duty history corrections made to the applicant’s records by HQ AFPC/DPAPS1. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at...
We reviewed the statement provided by the additional rater/reviewer on the 2 June 1997 OPR, who indicated it was his intention that the report be included in the applicant’s record considered by the cited selection board. We also noted applicant‘s contention that his primary AFSC was incorrect on his “selection Report on Individual Personnel.” However, primary A F S C s are not reflected on officer selection briefs reviewed by promotion selection boards, only the member’s duty AFSCs are...
With regard to the applicant’s request to correct the Assignment History section on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY98B promotion board, we note that AFPC/DPAPS1 concurs with the applicant that the duty titles for 6 May 1991 and 1 October 1991 as reflects “Mechanical Engineer” are incorrect and should be deleted. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that the Air Force Achievement Medal First Oak Leaf...