RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03318 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The effective date of his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) be changed from 18 Jan 2011 to 9 Aug 2011. (Admin Corrected) 2. He receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6), in his CAFSC. (Admin Corrected) 3. On 6 Nov 2012, the applicant amended his application to request that he be promoted to the grade of TSgt. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The effective date of his AFSC was changed without his knowledge. Had he been under the correct AFSC, he would have been selected for promotion based on the 12E6 testing cycle Specialty Knowledge Training (SKT) scores. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: In a 20 Aug 2012 memorandum to the applicant, AFPC/DPSIDC determined that the effective date for his CAFSC should have been 9 Aug 2010. Administrative correction of his official military personnel record has been completed by AFPC/DPSIDC. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE states that after DPSIDC’s correction of his record to reflect his CAFSC was effective 9 Aug 2010, his request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 11E6 in the 2TOX1 AFSC was also approved. Although his total score met the cutoff score required for selection during cycle 11E6 in the 2TOX1 AFSC, his commander “nonrecommended” his promotion based on an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) that was established due his three Fitness Assessment (FA) failures. The complete DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and voluminous documents asserting how he was adversely impacted by the administrative actions taken against him. Notwithstanding the correction to his records, the applicant asserts he would have been promoted to TSgt effective 1 Jan 2012 had his CAFSC been correctly reflected in his records. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We note that the applicant’s effective date of his CAFSC was corrected and he received supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of TSgt in his CAFSC and was selected. However, due to his three failed FAs his commander nonrecommended him for promotion to the grade of TSgt. The applicant is now contending that had his CAFSC been correctly reflected in his records in Aug 2010, he would have been promoted to the grade of TSgt in Jan 2012. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that relief is warranted. In this respect, we note that in Aug 2010, the same three failed FAs that formed the basis for his nonrecommendaiton for promotion to the grade of TSgt in Oct 12 still existed in Jan 2012. As such, we conclude that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an 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 this application in Executive Session on 9 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2012-03318: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Oct 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2012. Exhibit E. Letters, Applicant, dated 6 Nov 2012, w/atchs and 29 Jan 2013, w/atchs. Panel Chair