AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00996 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  of  9A100,  which  denotes 
“Airman  Awaiting  Retraining  –  Disqualified  for  Reasons  within 
his  Control”  be  changed  back  to  Special  Duty  Identifier  (SDI) 
8R300, which denotes “Recruiter.” 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. He  was  a  third  tier  recruiter,  supervising  recruiters  in 
Manhattan  and  the  Bronx.    When  his  flight  failed  to  make  its 
recruiting goal, he was removed as a supervisor.   
 
2. Two  months  prior  to  his  removal,  his  superintendent  was 
relieved  of  her  position.    During  that  same  year,  the  squadron 
missed its quota. 
 
3. After  being  removed,  he  was  sent  to  the  Fort  Dix  Military 
Entrance  Processing  Station  (MEPS),  where  he  worked  as  an  Air 
Force Liaison for six months.  He was given a “9A100” AFSC in an 
effort  to  push  him  to  retire.    Up  until  this  point,  he  had  a 
good record and performed well in recruiting. 
 
4. He  completed  his  CCAF  degree  requirements  prior  to 
retirement; however, he cannot receive his degree because of the 
“9A100”  AFSC.    The  loss  of  a  degree  can  cost  him  job 
opportunities. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement, copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge  from  Active  Duty;  AF  Forms  910,  Enlisted  Performance 
Report  (AB  thru  TSgt),  and  other  documentation  associated  with 
request.  
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On  16  Mar  07,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s 
intent to detail him to the Fort Dix, MEPS for 90 days because he 

had  been  removed  from  his  duties  as  a  flight  chief.    The 
commander stated “the Fort Dix MEPS was undermanned and the move 
was is in the best interest of the Air Force.”   
 
On  18  Oct  07,  the  applicant  was  detailed  to  the  314  RCS 
Headquarters,  Support  Flight  until  his  retraining  package  was 
approved.  The commander stated “the move would provide manpower 
to an undermanned support flight and was in the best interest of 
the squadron and the Air Force.”  
 
On  18  Jan  08,  the  314  RCS  commander  recommended  to  the  360th 
Recruiting  Group  commander  (360  RCG/CC)  the  applicant  be 
continued  for  90  days  at  the  squadron  headquarters.    The 
commander stated “they were working an exception to policy (ETP) 
package to assign him to the squadron headquarters.” 
 
On 30 Sep 08, the applicant retired from active duty in the grade 
of technical sergeant.  
 
The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFRS/RSX recommends denial.  RSX states since the applicant was 
disqualified  from  the  8R000  career  field  they  do  not  have  the 
authority to reinstate the SDI to allow him to receive a Human 
Resources CCAF degree.   
 
The  8R  SDI  was  removed  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2101, 
Classifying  Military  Personnel  (Officer  and  Enlisted),  which 
states  individuals  leaving  a  SDI  without  an  AFSC  are  to  be 
processed and identified as disqualified airman.   
 
The  applicant  was  removed  from  duty  for  ineffective  management 
style.  His subordinates were not being held accountable through 
positive  and  effective  leadership.    In  addition,  members  were 
not meeting assigned production missions. 
 
AFPC  Classifications,  AFPC  Assignments  Director  and  the 
8R000 Functional Manager were involved with the applicant’s case 
to ensure fairness. 
 
The complete RSX evaluation is at Exhibit B.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
By letter dated 28 Jul 12, the applicant states recruiting being 
the stressful career field that it is, he served 12 years in the 
 
 

2

northeast  in  what  was  considered  a  hard  to  fill  area.  
Throughout  his  time  in  recruiting  he  received  his  senior 
Recruiter  Badge  twice;  two  time  recruiter  of  the  year  and 
multiple monthly awards including a top liaison for the quarter 
award while working at the Fort Dix MEPS.   
 
The  applicant  states  his  relief  from  the  flight  supervisor 
position  was  for  two  reasons:  1)  ineffective  management  style 
and  2)  missing  the  assigned  quota.    He  could  have  done  things 
differently.  He was not prepared to deal with the situations he 
faced as a supervisor of the Manhattan and Bronx area and fell 
short of what was required. 
 
Regarding his management style; he had a single female recruiter 
get  pregnant  six  months  after  being  assigned  who  immediately 
went on a profile; two recruiters that were under investigation 
with the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), a recruiter who 
was  afraid  to  work  in  the  Bronx.    Due  to  his  poor  decision 
making  skills  he  was  relieved  and  left  the  Air  Force.    The 
secretary  for  his  flight  retired  prior  to  his  arrival; 
therefore,  he  never  had  a  secretary  to  assist  with  any  of  the 
reports, unlike the other flights.  He made numerous requests to 
have someone either detailed or hired to no avail.  He struggled 
as a manager because he had never been in a management position 
until  this  point.    While  he  acknowledges  these  are  excuses;  he 
felt hopeless and tried to do his best.   
 
With  respect  to  missing  the  assigned  quota,  B  flight 
(Manhattan/Bronx)  had  only  met  their  quota  5  out  of  the  last 
15 years  prior  to  him  taking  over.    The  previous  flight  chief 
struggled as well.  He did well the first year but when his top 
recruiter  was  pulled  due  to  an  OSI  investigation,  his  numbers 
fell. 
 
He was not allowed to retrain due to the number of years he had 
remaining in the Air Force.  He was informed he could still get 
his  degree;  however,  it  was  not  until  he  had  departed  McGuire 
Air Force Base, New Jersey that he realized he could not because 
of his SDI.   
 
The applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.    The 
 
 

3

applicant  requests  his  AFSC  of  9A100  be  changed  to  8R000;  we 
find the evidence provided is insufficient to recommend granting 
his  stated  request.    Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its 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  this  relief  sought  in  this 
application.   
 
4.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant 
partial  relief.    Although  the  applicant  was  disqualified  from 
the  recruiting  career  field  and  no  longer  possess  the  required 
AFSC to qualify for a CCAF degree, we do not believe this alone 
should  prevent  him  from  receiving  a  CCAF  degree.    In  this 
respect,  we  note  his  AFSC  was  not  removed  due  to  misconduct 
rather  for  ineffective  management  and  not  meeting  stringent 
recruiting quotas.  In addition, during the period in question, 
the  applicant  received  an  above  average  EPR  which  reflects  how 
his  overall  efforts  continued  to  support  the  Air  Force 
recruiting mission.  In view of the above, we find the evidence 
is  sufficient  to  provide  an  alternate  relief.    While  the 
applicant has requested his AFSC be reinstated, in the interest 
of  justice,  we  believe  the  more  appropriate  relief  is  to  award 
the  applicant  a  CCAF  degree  in  Human  Resources  Management.  
Accordingly, as an exception to policy, we recommend his records 
be corrected to the extent indicated below.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force  relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  on 
29 September  2008  he  was  awarded  a  Human  Resources  Management 
degree from the Community College of the Air Force. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-00996  in  Executive  Session  on  5  Nov  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
Panel Chair 
 
 
Member 
 
Member 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00996 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRS/RSX, dated 3 Jul 12. 
 
 

  
  
  

 
 
 

4

    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jul 12.  
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Jul 12, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
 

Panel Chair 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

5