RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00595
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her previously awarded Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of
1N333A, which denotes Cryptologic Linguist, be restored as a
secondary AFSC.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. A previous supervisor removed her secondary AFSC to avoid
requests to deploy her in that AFSC.
2. The removal of her previously awarded AFSC negates the first
five years of her Air Force career, which she believes is an
injustice and adversely impacts her overall record.
3. Promotion boards should get a complete and accurate picture
of her service when reviewing her records. As it stands today,
they only see her current AFSC and not her overall versatility
and value to the Air Force.
4. She was aware of the change to her record by Chief Master
Sergeant B. but did not realize the impact to her overall
service/promotion record until her current command chief
reviewed her promotion board record and noticed her previous
AFSC was missing/not listed as a secondary AFSC.
5. When she retires, she would like her service record to
reflect her entire career, service and contributions without
deleting the first five years.
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her
AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) (AB thru TSgt).
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade
of senior master sergeant (SMSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDC recommends denial. DPSIDC states according to AFI
36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted),
paragraph 4.1.2, Lack of Recent Performance (Downgrade or
Withdrawal), AFSCs awarded at the 7- or 9-skill level are
withdrawn after 8 years, and 5-skill level (3-skill level, if no
5-skill level exists in the ladder) is withdrawn after 6 years,
3-skill level is withdrawn after 2-years.
After reviewing the applicants record, DPSIDC ascertained the
last time she served in AFSC 1N333A was in 1994. Since she has
not served in this AFSC in more than 16 years, they determined
the withdrawal of AFSC 1N333A was and still is appropriate.
The complete DPSIDC evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit
B.
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the senior
noncommissioned officer (SNCO) selection folders evaluated by
board members contain EPRs covering 10 years from the current
cycle promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), not to exceed
12 reports, all decoration citations, Article 15s and court-
martials (if appropriate) and an evaluation brief. The brief is
a snapshot of a SNCOs career including duty history, education
and decorations; as well as, control, promotion and duty AFSC
(as of PECD for the cycle). 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 comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging
the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-00595 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPSIDC, Letter, dated 17 May 11, w/atch.
Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOE, Letter, dated 9 Aug 11.
Exhibit D. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 19 Aug 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04076
She was notified by the Base Records Office that the basic AFAM was missing from her personnel records and she needed to provide a copy or her records would be changed to reflect the assumed discrepancy. The complete DPSOE 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 1 Apr 11, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03501
The EPR does not reflect the correct Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). The completed DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant, through counsel, submits a 7-page statement and a 1-page statement regarding the Air Force advisories. Counsel alleges the actions taken by the commander for the applicants DUI were appropriate; however, the additional actions against the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02569
DPSOE states members cannot test in an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for which they are no longer assigned. After returning from deployment, the applicant was scheduled and tested PFE only on 24 Feb 10 for cycle 10E6 in CAFSC 3D1X2 based on the AFSC conversion. 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 the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-03527
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of a screen shot of her Training Status Code from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), an excerpt from AFI 36-2502 Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, her Weighted Airman Promotion System Score Notice, and an AF IMT 330, Records Transmittal/Request. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR), which are attached at...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03937
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03937 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her line number for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt/E-8) be reinstated for promotion cycle 11E8. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00245
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00245 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted supplemental promotion consideration for the 2008 Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) cycle, and subsequent promotion cycles, with an enlisted performance report (EPR) selection record that includes ten years of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 01472
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit H. AFLOA/JAJM addresses the applicants nonjudicial punishment (Article 15), and determines the applicants commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making the decision to punish the applicant under Article 15. In addition, while the Board notes the applicant was denied the opportunity to test for promotion during the 10E5 promotion cycle, the fact she did not test also constitutes a harmless error because she was not...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05819
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05819 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed to reflect that she was promoted during cycle 09E5 rather than Cycle 10E5. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommended denial of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04010
He would have been promoted; however, the referral EPR was not removed from his record until after he retired. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...