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 applicant’s 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withdrawn after 8 years, and 5-skill level (3-skill level, if no 
5-skill level exists in the ladder) is withdrawn after 6 years, 
3-skill level is withdrawn after 2-years.”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 applicant’s 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