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.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was hired and fulfilled  the  duties  of  deputy  group  commander.
However, due to a reorganization at  7AF,  he  was  put  in  a  billet
designated for AFSC 11F4U, although he  was  fulfilling  his  role  as
deputy group commander.

His  officer  performance  reports  (OPRs)  reflect   his   role   and
responsibilities as the deputy group commander, but he was not awarded
the 10C0 AFSC as all other operations deputy group commanders are.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies of  OPRs  rendered
on him closing 31 Mar 04 and 31 Mar 05 and copies of orders reflecting
his assigned position number.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  According to information  in  the  military  personnel  data
system (MilPDS), the applicant was assigned duties as deputy commander
effective 23 Jun 03 until 1 Jul 05 with an  AFSC  of  11F4U,  “Fighter
Pilot.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO recommends denial of the applicant’s request  for  award  of
AFSC 10C0 and recommends his OPRs closing 31 Mar 04 and 31 Mar  05  be
corrected to reflect an AFSC of  11F3U  vice  11F4U.   They  note  the
applicant was assessed back on extended active duty (EAD)  22  May  03
into position number 0R0192277 to perform duties as a  fighter  pilot,
AFSC 11F3U.  The duty AFSC 10C0 was not authorized, nor does the  unit
he was assigned to have a 10C0 authorized/funded position number.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the applicant’s 23 Jun 05 OPR be  corrected  to
reflect the correct AFSC of 11F3U.  Examiner’s Note:  Per telecom with
DPPPEP, the date of  23  Jun  05  is  incorrect.   They  are  actually
concurring with DPAO that the two aforementioned OPRs closing  31  Mar
04 and 31 Mar 05 be corrected.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response the applicant  indicates  his  disagreement  with  the
assertion by AFPC/DPPPEP that he has not provided any documentation to
substantiate award of DAFS 10C0.  He notes he  provided  two  OPRs  he
received during his time as the Deputy Commander.   He  further  notes
that both the job description and the narrative clearly state his role
and responsibilities in this duty.   The  applicant  states  that  the
personnel systems in Korea have not been updated and that many of  the
positions assigned to a unit do not actually reside in that unit.  The
applicant provides an example of personnel that were assigned  to  the
positions in his unit but worked elsewhere.  The applicant states that
AFPC/DPPPEP based their recommendation on the type of position he  was
put in, which the applicant indicates was for convenience  because  no
position with  the  correct  AFSC  existed  at  the  time.   Applicant
recounts his efforts to get the situation corrected and points out the
action was stalled in Air Force and PACAF  bureaucracy  for  over  two
years and the reorganization of the units  were  never  approved.   In
regards to his OPR, the applicant states the administrative  error  is
in the DAFSC  and  not  the  comments.   His  rating  chain  by  their
signature support his assertion he was a deputy commander  during  the
period of the OPRs.  He further states that a DAFSC is a reflection of
authority and responsibilities and not a position number according  to
AFI 36-2101.  He states that the whole argument being made by the  Air
Force revolves around his being assigned to a position number that had
a duty AFSC of 11F3U assigned to it and had nothing  to  do  with  his
actual duties and responsibilities.

In further support of his appeal, applicant again provides  copies  of
his OPRs closing 31 Mar 04 and 31 Mar 05.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_______________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we note the determination by AFPC/DPAO that the unit to which
the applicant was assigned did not have an authorized,  funded  billet
requiring the AFSC he seeks.  We further note the applicant’s argument
that his OPRs during the assignment in question substantiate  that  he
performed the duties of Deputy Group Commander.  While his OPRs do  in
fact reflect Deputy Group Commander as  his  duty  title,  we  do  not
believe it is feasible to accept this as  the  determining  factor  in
assigning an AFSC.   Firstly,  other  than  his  own  assertions,  the
applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to explain why  he  was
assigned these duties when there was not an authorized, funded billet.
 Secondly, it does not appear there are controls to ensure  that  OPRs
are  restricted  to  duty  titles  and  duties  consistent   with   an
individual’s authorized position.  To award  an  AFSC  solely  on  the
basis of an OPR could seriously undermine the process by which manning
and assignments are controlled.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief  sought  in  this  application.   Additionally,  we  note   the
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility that
the applicant’s OPRs  should  be  corrected  to  reflect  AFSC  11F3U.
However, we defer any action  required  in  this  regard  to  them  to
accomplish administratively.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2006-
01470 in Executive Session on 25 July 2006, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memo, AFPC/DPAO, dated 9 Jun 06.
    Exhibit D.  Memo, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 9 Jun 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
    Exhibit F.  Memo, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair