Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01592
Original file (BC-2005-01592.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01592
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 November 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Block 11 (Primary Specialty), be corrected to reflect
his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) skill level as 7S071  rather  than
7S031.

His request for Foreign Service (Block 12.f.) and  Military  Education
(Block 14) corrections on his DD Form 214 have  been  administratively
corrected.  In addition, Block  13  (Decorations),  was  corrected  to
include the Iraq Campaign Medal.  Hence, no Board action  is  required
on this portion of the applicant’s appeal.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

All required training was accomplished  and  AFSC  7S071  was  awarded
(Counterintel and Career Enhancement Course/Probation Period).  Errors
may have occurred due to poor records/systems update practices.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his DD Form
214, award certificates, training forms, certificates of training  and
medical  documents.   The  applicant’s   complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records are unavailable.

Information extracted from applicant’s DD Form  214  reveals  that  he
entered active duty on 22 October 1997 and was progressively  promoted
to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).  The applicant was released from
active duty on 11 April 2005  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208
(completion of required active service).  His Primary Specialty  codes
(Block 11) were reflected  as  7S031,  Special  Investigations,  (four
years and one month) and 1C451,  Tactical  Air  Command  and  Control,
(three years and four months).  The applicant had completed a total of
7 years, 5 months and 20 days and was serving in the grade of  E-5  at
the time of separation.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAC recommends the applicant’s request for correction to his
AFSC  be  denied.   DPPAC  states  that  the  two  documents  provided
(Certificate of Training, Career Enhancement  and  Counterintelligence
Operations  Training  Course,   Course   Number:    644AC7S071;   and,
Certificate of Training, Advanced Deployment of Operations Course 2004-
005, Course ID: 544AA7S071-030) are not source documents for  awarding
the 7-skill level  or  verifying  the  period  of  7S071  performance.
Additional  documentation  is  necessary  to  properly  evaluate   the
applicant’s request.   If  the  applicant  can  provide  documentation
substantiating he was upgraded; i.e., special orders, AF  Forms  2096,
APRs, etc., DPPAC will reconsider  his  appeal.    The  HQ  AFPC/DPPAC
evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  29
July 2005 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  His contentions are duly  noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale  provided
by the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility.   We,  therefore,
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the appropriate Air Force
office and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his  burden  that  he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of  the  above  and
absent evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  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 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 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-01592.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 May 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAC, dated 12 Jul 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 05.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02643

    Original file (BC-2005-02643.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. DFAS-POCC/DE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for back pay. When Government records are no longer available and the applicant is unable to provide sufficient evidence to support their request, the request should be denied. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were sent to the applicant on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01959

    Original file (BC-2005-01959.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03952

    Original file (BC-2005-03952.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his DD Form 214, his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, and an AF Form 2096, Classification/On-The-Job Training Action. He was serving in the grade of staff sergeant and had served 7 years, 11 months, and 8 days at the time of his separation. Further, and notwithstanding his inclusion of an AF Form 2096 indicating his AFSC at the 7-level, his discharge package reveals he was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03556

    Original file (BC-2002-03556.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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. 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 was classified as an intelligence technician...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01991

    Original file (BC-2005-01991.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01991 INDEX CODE: 106.00, 100.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 81150 rather than 81130, and his 1985 discharge be upgraded from general to honorable. According to his Enlisted...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02310

    Original file (BC-2005-02310.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02361

    Original file (BC-2005-02361.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. Complete copies of the applicant’s responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that prior to the start of the promotion cycle, CFMs are advised that if they feel it is appropriate for the suffix and “slick” AFSCs...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02683

    Original file (BC-2005-02683.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 assume the grade when data verification discovers missing or erroneous data.” Therefore, if an IDMT serving...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02723

    Original file (BC-2005-02723.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02404

    Original file (BC-2005-02404.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...