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.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Two of his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) inaccurately list
his DAFSC with a K prefix denoting instructor pilot, instead
of Q prefix denoting examiner/evaluator status. 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 his
application. His OPRs dated 18 May 11 and 1 Mar 12 document
flight examiner/evaluator status in paragraph 2, line 4.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty as a Major
(Maj/O-4).
On 18 Aug 14, Aeronautical Order (PA) Aviation Service documents
the applicants DAFSC as K 011E3 B.
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/DPAL recommends disapproval. The officers assignment team
reviewed his request and referenced the Air Force Officer
Classification Directory (AFOCD). In accordance with Section I
of the AFOCD, a Q prefix is awarded to members in a Q coded
position and performing flight examiner duties. The applicants
2011 OPR stated he was Chief of Stan/Evaluation and the Chief F-
16 Instructor/Evaluation Pilot in Section II. However, the
position he occupied was position 1M0071998 with an authorized
DAFSC of K11E3G. His 2012 OPR stated that he continued to be an
F-16 Evaluation Pilot however; he also continued to occupy the
same position number. Despite the work he did as an evaluator
pilot, he never occupied a position with an authorized DAFSC of
Q11XX.
The complete AFPC/DPAL 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 10 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). 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, to include the Aviation Resource Management
System data; however, 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 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 documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAL, dated 15 Sep 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 14.AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04454
The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant affirms his request for both a change of DAFSC and Duty Title on his OPRs. The applicant contends that he served as an instructor pilot during the applicable reporting period and, as such, the contested OPRs should reflect the requested DAFSC. Block 5, Period of Report, of his OPR closing on 22 August 2002, be...
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...
I' A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the appeal and indicates that the DAFSC for the 15 January 1995 duty history has been corrected to include the IrK1l prefix, which indicates the applicant is a qualified instructor pilot. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, examined the application and states that the additional rater's letter does not warrant removing the contested OPR. A complete copy of...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03918
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03918 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to reflect K11M3K rather than 11M3K, effective 1 Jan 05; and that his corrected record receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02020
His DAFSC for the effective date of 14 Jun 96 includes an incorrect “Q” prefix certifying him as an evaluator, which he never was. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX In Executive Session on 16 January 2003, we considered the applicant’s request for promotion consideration to major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00352
The applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAO recommended the OPR remain in the applicant’s record. In a letter dated 18 January 2005[sic], counsel for the applicant requested the applicant’s case be reopened (Exhibit L). In reference to the number of days of supervision, the applicant claims that the rater of the contested report was TDY on numerous occasions.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copies of the contested report, personnel data, and an extract from an Air Force manual. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. DPPPA indicated that the applicant has provided no material evidence confirming he was approved for an assigned against a position coded with the DAFSC “T11H3C” on the closeout date of the contested report.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03853
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004- 03853 INDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 19 Jun 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the Calendar Year 2004B (CY04B) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Central Selection Board (CSB) include his current duty entry, “1 Jul 03 - Mil Dep & Subscale Tgts...
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...