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skill level AFSC is withdrawn after two years due to lack of recent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:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, 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.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02718
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02718 INDEX CODES: 100.05, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 Mar 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment, his promotion eligibility be reinstated so his test scores for the 03E6 cycle can be graded; he receive promotion consideration for cycle 04E6; his training status code...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01959
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01959 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 DECEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2A771, Aircraft...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00595
If an individual performed duties in a secondary AFSC, it might be reflected in one of the EPRs or decorations, or in the duty history; however, a secondary AFSC has never been reflected as a separate entry on the SNCO evaluation brief. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Aug 11 for review and...
His former Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 3P051 be reinstated. However, if the Board recommends the applicant’s rank of E-4 be restored, they recommend changing his RE code to 3K (i.e., Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate). Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the nonjudicial punishment, initiated on 22 July 1999 and imposed on 30 July 1999, was improper.
His AFSC of K1A171C was withdrawn because he was medically disqualified from performing flying duties. As such, he was medically disqualified from the AFSC and it was withdrawn. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01367
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01367 INDEX NUMBER: 111.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered on him for the periods 31 Jul 00 through 8 Jun 01 and 9 Jun 01 through 15 Apr 02 be voided and removed from his records. The complete evaluation is at...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03434
MSgt K---, a member of his AFS (4Y0X0), was attending the First Sergeant Academy and her record was scored in the 4Y0X0 career field. Each individual's record was corrected, they were provided supplemental promotion consideration, and not selected for promotion in the 8F000 CAFSC. Therefore, the CAFSC effective date would be the date assigned duty--11 Nov 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02310
Not every IDMT-qualified member was identified, mostly because they were not in an IDMT position. Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01061
The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant response to the Air Force evaluations, with attachments, is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01171
The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the applicant may have...