Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03920
Original file (BC-2005-03920.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03920
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 JUNE 2007

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC)  be  changed  on  his  AF
Force  Forms  910,  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPRs)  closing
15 January 2005, 15 January 2004, and 15 January 2003.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded a 5-Level effective October 2002 and received his  7-
Level effective November 2004.

In support of his application, applicant has provided a copy  of  a
classification/On-The-Job   Training   Action,   upgrade   training
worksheet, and EPRs.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman  basic
on 5 July 2000 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff
sergeant.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial and  states  the  applicant’s  EPRs  are
correct with the exception of the 15 January  2003  EPR.  The       15
January 2003 EPR should read a DAFSC of 3A031 based  on  the  member’s
duty history. However, if the decision is to grant the relief  sought,
the records should be corrected to show the DAFSC on  the  15  January
2003 EPR as 3A031.

The EPR only requires the DAFSC in  which  a  person  is  assigned  to
according to the Unit Personnel Management Roster  (UPMR).  The  DAFSC
does not have to match a person’s Primary  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(PAFSC). The applicant’s PAFSC was upgraded to 3A051 effective October
2002 and 3A071 effective November 2004. Based on the applicant’s  duty
history in MILPDS, the applicant was assigned  to  a  DAFSC  of  3A031
effective 14 November 2000 with a duty title of Information Management
Apprentice. A change to his duty history was  made  effective  1  July
2005 with a DAFSC of 3A051 and a duty title of Asst NCOIC, ASG CIS/ADP
MGT.

AFPC/DPPP complete 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
17 March 2006 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 an error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the  EPRs
closing 2004 and 2005.  After reviewing all of the evidence  provided,
we are not persuaded that the  contested  reports  are  an  inaccurate
depiction of the applicant's duty history.  In this respect, the Board
notes that while the applicant was upgraded and awarded a  5-level  in
his Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) of 3A051,  his  EPRs  are
only required to show the DAFSC in which he is assigned  to  according
to the Unit Personnel Management Roster, and the DAFSC does  not  have
to match the PAFSC. The Board took note that the DAFSC  on  EPR  dated
15 January 2003 is  in  error;  however,  we  do  not  believe  it  is
appropriate to take an action that may be detrimental to the applicant
notwithstanding the obvious error.  In view of the  foregoing  and  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 a 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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
03920 in Executive Session on 6 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:


            Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
            Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
            Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B. Applicant's Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 10 Mar 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 06.






                                             JAMES W. RUSSELL III
      Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03111

    Original file (BC-2006-03111.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPPEP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 20 Feb 04. The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) agreed the reports contain several duplicate comments; however, they will not void a report that can be administratively corrected. The complete DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995

    Original file (BC-2006-01995.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02492

    Original file (BC-2006-02492.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her request, the applicant provided documents extracted from her military personnel records. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01470

    Original file (BC-2006-01470.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01470 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 Nov 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 10C0, “Operations Commander,” for the time he spent as a deputy group commander. According to information in the military personnel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03088

    Original file (BC-2006-03088.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03088 INDEX CODE: 111.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 April 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) considered by the CY03B (27 October 2003) (P0603B) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be replaced with a corrected PRF provided...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01266

    Original file (BC-2002-01266.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01266 02-02454 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) effective 20 June 1999 be changed from “16F4A” to “P16F4AW” on his officer selection brief (OSB); his duty title effective 1 April 1995 be changed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02454

    Original file (BC-2002-02454.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01266 02-02454 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) effective 20 June 1999 be changed from “16F4A” to “P16F4AW” on his officer selection brief (OSB); his duty title effective 1 April 1995 be changed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03161

    Original file (BC-2006-03161.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    His additional rater abused his authority to encourage his deployed supervisor to reissue a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) with a negative statement in order to substantiate his comments and ratings on the contested EPR. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The additional rater of the contested EPR closing 9 November 2003, downgraded ratings rendered by the Rater in Section III, Evaluation of Performance, for “How Well Does Ratee Perform Assigned...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01862

    Original file (BC-2006-01862.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide mid-term performance feedback on 1 March 2006 as indicated on the report, nor was verbal feedback provided from the endorsers. We note the applicant’s assertion that his chain of command did not provide written or verbal performance feedback; however, we also note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01175

    Original file (BC-2005-01175.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 August 2004, she was provided a copy of her 1 July 2004 EPR from the military personnel flight (MPF). AFPC/DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 June 2005, for review and response within 30 days. We are not convinced by the evidence she provided in support of her appeal, that the contested...