RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04145 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) of 95A0 (USAF 
Admissions Liaison Officer) be changed to reflect 17D3 (Cyber 
Operations). 

 

2. He be given supplemental promotion consideration to the 
grade of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col, 0-5) for cycles V0510B in 
2010 and V0511B in 2011 with his PAFSC of 17D3 in accordance 
with AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation. 

 

3. His Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF) for the promotion 
boards referenced above, be re-accomplished by his senior rater 
with a consideration of changing the Overall Recommendation to 
Definitely Promote (DP). 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His PAFSC was incorrectly assigned as 95AO on his Officer 
Selection Briefs (OSB). 95A0 is a Reporting Indicator (RI), not 
an AFSC. 

 

In August 2010, he discovered that his AFSC 33S3, Communication 
and Computer Systems, was converted to the new 17D3 in June 
2010. During this period he was designated as a Cyber 
Operations officer and 17D3 appeared on his records as his 
secondary AFSC (2AFSC). His PAFSC should be 17D3 in accordance 
with AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and 
Enlisted), Section 3.1. 

 

His 2AFSC should be 95AO in accordance with AFI 36-2101, and the 
Air Force Officer Classification Directory (AFOCD), dated 1 Aug 
2010. 

 

An Operational AFSC carries significantly more weight than a 
Support AFSC or RI. This contention is supported by the fact 
that officers with Operational AFSCs typically have a higher 
percentage of promotees. He provides an example in his 
submission at Attachment 7. 

 

From Aug 2010 to Mar 2011, he sent electronic communiqués to 
numerous offices in an attempt to change his PAFSC to 17D3. The 
last email, from Headquarters Readiness Management Group (HQ 


RMG), indicated his request was denied; however, they advised 
he could request the Air Force Board of Corrections for Military 
Records (AFBCMR) correct his records. 

 

He is most qualified to serve as a Cyber Operations officer 
because the civilian positions he held since leaving active duty 
are directly related to the duties and qualifications of a Cyber 
Operations officer. If he returns to active duty and his 
civilian experience is considered, he would be best suited as a 
Cyber Operations officer. Additionally, it is his understanding 
that there are no active duty Air Liaison Officers since this is 
strictly a function for Category E Reserve officers. 

 

His request to have his PAFSC changed is appropriate. He has 
reviewed the AFI and other Air Force documents and disagrees 
with his leadership chain, RMG, and Servicing Personnel Office. 
He has requested on numerous occasions an explanation of their 
interpretation of the AFI and questions why their interpretation 
is correct. He has not received a satisfactory answer. 

 

In support of his request the applicant provides extracts from 
applicable Air Force instructions, documents, and handbooks; 
copies of Calendar Year (CY) 2010 Air Force Reserve Line and 
Health Professional Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Promotion 
Selection Boards Aeronautical Rating (Line Only), Air Force 
Training Certificates, electronic communiqués, officer selection 
briefs, and AFD-1150517-021, Instructions for Correction of OPB. 

 

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

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System 
reflects the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service 
Date (TAFMSD) as 27 May 1992. He is currently serving in the 
Air Force Reserves as a major (0-4). 

 

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to 
the grade of Lt Col (0-5) by the Calendar Year (CY) 2010 and CY 
2011 Central Lt Col Boards. 

 

 

 


 

The applicant’s DAFSC history since 1992, follows: 

 

 Effective Date DAFSC 

 

 27 Jul 1992 4941 (Communication Officer) 

 

 17 Nov 1992 4941 (Communication Officer) 

 

 1 Oct 1993 33S1 (Communication Officer) 

 

 11 Apr 1994 33S1 (Communication Officer) 

 

 18 Jan 1996 33S1 (Communication Officer) 

 

 8 Feb 1999 36P3 (Personnel Officer) 

 

 19 Sep 1999 36P1 (Personnel Officer) 

 

 15 May 2002 95A0(USAF Admissions Liaison Officer) 

 

 1 Jun 2009 95A0(USAF Admissions Liaison Officer) 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFRC/AlK recommends denial. A1K states, the PAFSC is to be 
the AFSC in which the individual is most qualified to perform 
duty. The applicant’s military record reflects he has not 
performed duty as a 17D3 for over 10 years, and as such, in 
accordance with AFI 36-2101, paragraph 4.1.2.1.3, the AFSC of 
17D3 should be withdrawn due to lack of recent performance. 
Additionally, as a point of clarification, his assigned 
Reporting Identifier (RI) of 95AO is awarded as the PAFSC 
because this is the Air Force practice used to award, designate 
and denote qualifications in the same manner as an awarded AFSC. 
Specifically, "Reporting Identifiers (RI) are established 
primarily to identify conditions or jobs where a specific 
specialty description is not practical, such as a patient or 
prisoner.” However, RIs are also awarded or designated to 
denote qualifications or to report a condition the same way 
AFSCs are awarded. Such is the case for his current assignment 
and the accompanying award of the RI 95AO. 

 

The complete AFRC/AlK evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He disagrees with the advisory opinion that he is not qualified 
to perform duty as a 17D3. He has performed the duty of a 


17D3 officer for his current unit and has completed 
17D3 training. In particular he completed the USAF Cyber 
Operations Transition Course, and earned certifications as a 
Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), 
Certified Information Security Manager (CISM), and Certified 
Information Systems Auditor (CISA). This military and civilian 
training directly relates to the 17D3 career field. 

 

In regards to the advisory opinion that AFSC 17D3 should be 
withdrawn due to lack of recent performance, he affirms that 
since he never requested withdrawal of his AFSC this does not 
apply to him and does not reference a lack of performance 
criteria. 

 

Regarding, A1K’s comments stating it is the Air Force Practice 
to award, designate, and denote qualifications for RI’s in the 
same manner as an awarded AFSC, A1K mistakenly combines four 
sections of AFI 36-2101 when making their statement. He agrees 
that he has been awarded the Rl 95A0 and with the award of this 
Rl the 95A0 identifier can be assigned to his (2AFSC) or third 
AFSC (3AFSC). Additionally, the 95A0 identifier can be assigned 
to his DAFSC, which is defined in AFI 36-2101 as, "The AFSC 
denoting the specialty in which the individual is performing 
duty." He disagrees with the implication that an awarded Rl can 
be assigned as an individual's PAFSC. His DAFSC of 95A0 is 
correct because that is the duty that he is currently 
performing, but his PAFSC is not correct and should be 
17D3 because this is what he is most qualified to perform. He 
expounds on additional points he would like the Board to 
consider in his response. 

 

He summarizes by stating that he has been awarded the 17D3 AFSC 
and has maintained his qualifications as a 17D3 officer. This 
was confirmed by the AFRC 17D Career Field Functional Manager in 
an email communiqué. The OSBs used for promotion boards V0510B 
and V0511B were incorrect when they reflected his PAFSC as 
95A0 and did not provide him with the best chance for promotion. 
Additionally, he feels the overall recommendation of “Promote” 
on the PRF for promotion boards V0510B and V011B was impacted 
by this error and by his attempts to get this error corrected 
through his chain of command. He requests the Board approve 
the requested corrections to his records and that his records 
for V0510B and V011B promotion boards be reevaluated by a SPB in 
accordance with AFI 36-2501. 

 

His complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ ARPC/DPD recommends denial of the applicant's request for a 
corrected OSB, and SSB consideration for CY10 and CY11 Lt Col 
Promotion Boards. If an appropriately documented package for 


correction of the PRFs is submitted, it can be addressed at that 
time. DPB states, since AFRC/A1K has recommended denial of the 
applicant's request to change his PAFSC, there is no change 
warranted to either OSB. Had this been a recommendation to 
change his PAFSC, the change to the OSB would not have been 
sufficient to warrant special selection board (SSB) 
consideration. 

 

In accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Reports, any change or correction to a PRF should go 
through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). 

 

The applicant will require new PRFs signed by the senior rater 
of record when the original PRFs were prepared. The senior 
rater will also need to prepare a memorandum explaining why the 
original PRF was in error. 

 

While the AFBCMR could act on the applicant's request, his 
application is lacking justification for replacing PRFs and is 
lacking the replacement PRFs. There is no justification for a 
SSB; the record has had no correction. A change in the PAFSC on 
an OSB would not generate a need for a SSB. The record of 
performance has not changed; all officer performance reports, 
training reports and PRFs are in the same condition as when 
viewed by the original boards. If the applicant does eventually 
have his PRFs corrected, his record would be evaluated for SSB 
consideration at that time. 

 

The applicant is currently in Reserve Sanctuary with a mandatory 
separation date of 1 Jun 2014. He will continue to meet 
promotion boards until his separation. 

 

The complete AFRC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION 

 

He agree that if the Air Force had agreed with his assessment 
that his PAFSC was incorrect and thus his OSB was incorrect then 
that alone would not be sufficient to warrant a SSB. According 
to AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion Continuation and Selective 
Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, Paragraph 9.2, 
only Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) 
or a federal court can direct an officer for consideration by a 
SSB. Additionally, Paragraph 9.2.1. states the AFBCMR can grant 
a SSB based on an administrative error. This is the reason he 
is pursuing this change through the AFBCMR process. He also 
agrees that new Promotion Recommendation Forms will need to be 
re-accomplished for promotion boards V0510B and V0511B. He 
disagrees that these forms need to be processed in accordance 
with AFI 36-2401. He also disagrees that his application is 
lacking justification to replace the PRFs. If the AFBCMR 
disagrees with his argument then the PRFs are correct. If the 


AFBCMR agrees with his argument that his PAFSC is incorrect in 
his records, then his Senior Rater based the overall promotion 
recommendation for both PRFs on bad information and thus should 
be provided the opportunity to correct them as directed by the 
AFBCMR and outside of the AFI 36-2401 process. 

 

His senior rater should have had the ability to take his 
operational AFSC of 17D3 into consideration in deciding the 
promotion recommendation of "Definitely Promote" versus a 
recommendation of "Promote" on both PRFs. 

 

To date, he still holds the 17D3 AFSC (see attached Duty 
Verification Brief) despite the fact that he has not served as a 
17D3 officer for several years and that this AFSC should have 
been withdrawn. His AFSC still has not been withdrawn. He is 
being denied the benefit of having an operational AFSC as his 
PAFSC. If the Air Force does not view him as a 17D3 officer, 
then they should withdraw his AFSC so he does not need to 
maintain the qualifications of that AFSC. He is a fully 
qualified 17D3 officer and would like his records to reflect his 
qualifications and his records be presented to his Senior Rater 
and Promotion Boards appropriately. 

 

His complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 warranting 
corrective action. Evidence has not been presented which would 
lead us to believe his record is inaccurate or was inaccurate 
when it was considered by the selection boards in question. 
After a thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our 
opinion that the PAFSC reflected on the applicant’s OSB was not 
in error, but in fact, correctly coincides with the duty 
position he was assigned to since 2002. Further, we find the 
information provided is insufficient to conclude his promotion 
opportunities were impacted by the primary AFSC indicated in his 
record or that his AFSC designations inhibited the promotion 
boards ability to render a fair and equitable decision as to his 
ability to serve in the next higher grade. Therefore, 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 failed to sustain his 
burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice in 
this case. Accordingly, we find no basis to recommend granting 
relief sought in this application. 


 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 21 Jun 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-04145: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/A1K, dated 21 Dec 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Dec 2011. 

 Exhibit E.