RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01541
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Duty Air Force Specialty Code in block 4 of his Officer
Performance Report with the close out date of 6 July 2010 be
changed from 64P4 (Contracting Officer) to 97E0 (Executive
Officer).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He served in the capacity of an Executive Officer during the
reporting period of this performance report.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is active duty serving in the grade of major.
Data extracted from his master personnel record reflects his job
description from 11 February 2010 through 6 July 2010 as
Executive Officer. His DAFSC was listed as 64P4.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPALS reviewed the applicants record and determined that
his duty AFSC should not be changed from a Contracting Officer
(64P) AFSC to an Executive Officer (97E0) AFSC. The applicant
was not in a 97E0 billet as there is no 97E0 billet under the
passcode in which the applicant served.
The complete DPALS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant did not file an
appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under
the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Reports.
Additionally, it is worthy to note that the contested OPR has
been a matter of record for over 4 years. The test to be
applied is not merely whether the applicant discovered the
error within three years, but whether through due diligence, he
could or should have discovered the error. The applicant
unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in asserting this claim.
He has waited 4 years to file this appeal and offered no
justification for the extensive delay, as well as took no action
on the claim before that.
As a result of this very long delay, the Air Force no longer
has documents on file (ie. Base Personnel Information File,
Unfavorable Information File, control roster, letter of
reprimand, etc.), memories have either faded or are not
available, and these factors seriously complicate any ability
to determine the merits of the applicant's request. In short,
the Air Force asserts that the applicant's unreasonable delay
regarding a matter dating back 4 years has greatly complicated
its ability to determine the factual merits of the applicant's
position.
The applicant stated he was in the Executive Officer capacity
and believes it warrants the DAFSC change on his contested OPR.
IAW AFI36-2406, Table 3.1, Line 5, it states: "Enter the DAFSC
held as of the "Thru" date of the report, including prefix and
suffix;" Note 3 states: "The DAFSC is the unit manning
document (UMD) authorization the officer is approved for (by HQ
AFPC) and assigned against as of the "Thru" date of the report
(as reflected on the OPR notice). This is not to be confused
with an officer's awarded AFSCs (PAFSC, 2AFSC, etc.)."
AFPC/DPALS provided an advisory recommending denying the
applicants request stating the applicant was not in the 97EO
billet as there is no 97EO billet under his assigned PAS.
The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 15 May 2015 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
notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the AFPC/DPSID and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion and find the applicant has not been
the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend
granting the requested relief.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-01541 in Executive Session on 24 June 2015 under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 15, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPALS, undated.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 May 15.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 15.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01112 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 111.01, 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be provided promotion reconsideration by the Calendar Year 1998C (CY98C) (1 Dec 98) Central Colonel Board with corrections to his officer selection brief (OSB) and his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) rendered for the period 13 May 83 through 12 May 84. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...
They further state, although the applicant did not request it, they assume he would like special selection board (SSB consideration by the CY97B board if the “C” prefix is added to the DAFSC on either the OSB or the OPRs or both. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he strongly disagrees with the recommendation made in the advisory opinion that his request not be...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01099
They further state, although the applicant did not request it, they assume he would like special selection board (SSB consideration by the CY97B board if the “C” prefix is added to the DAFSC on either the OSB or the OPRs or both. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he strongly disagrees with the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01255 INDEX NUMBER: 100.05; 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 24 Mar 1995 and 14 Jan 1996, be changed to reflect the instructor prefix “K” on his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) of 12B3B; the DAFSCs of 12B3B in the Assignment History section of his Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) for the Calendar...
DPAPS1 stated that applicant’s OPR closing 20 Oct 97 reflects the DAFSC as “62E3G.” This is mirrored under his duty history segment on the PDS and is correct based on the above mentioned OPR. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant stated that if a change to the OPR is necessary to change his duty history, then he concurs with AFPC/DPAPS1’s recommendation...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02401
The AF Form 475 Education/Training Report for the period 7 June 2001 through 15 June 2002 block 4, section I reflected a DAFSC of 13B3E and block 1, section II reflected an AFSC of W13B3E. The evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a response which is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. With...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01668
His duty title on his Officer Performance Reports (OPR) and Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the period of 2006 to 2009 while assigned to Reserve Officer Training Command (ROTC) be changed to ?Commandant of Cadets.? _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPALS recommends denial of the applicant?s request to change his duty title to ?Recruiting Flight Commander? Although the applicant performed the same duties as those afforded the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01308
The applicants request was not submitted in a timely matter. The report in question has been a matter of record for over 17 years. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID 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 15 May 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00293
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to correct his DAFSC on his P0510A PRF. He requests his record be corrected with the Section Commander duty title and a C prefix added to his DAFSC, followed by SSB consideration. Therefore, we are convinced that both...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03444
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03444 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) be updated to reflect his certification as an F-16 Evaluator Pilot. During the period of the OPRs, he served as an examiner/evaluator for 4.1 hours of flight time, as annotated on the copy of the Aviation Resource Management System (ARMS) printout he provided with...