RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01074
		INDEX CODE:  100.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) be changed from 61S3D to 63A3 on all Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered between 19 Jul 99 and the present.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 24 Aug 99, his DAFSC was incorrectly changed from 63AX to 61S3D.

In support of his request applicant provided copies of the affected OPRs, an extract of AFI 36-2401, a memorandum from his commander, and a copy of a Officer Single Uniform Retrieval Format (SURF).  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 3 May 96 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 3 May 00.

Applicant's DAFSC history extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant was assigned DAFSCs as follows:

	DAFSC	EFFECTIVE DATE
	61S1D	 3 Jul 96
	61S3D	16 Jan 97
	63A1	19 Jul 99
	61S3D	24 Aug 99
	63A3	15 Jun 02

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPASA states that the applicant's OPRs produced between 19 Jul 99 and February 2002 reflect the correct AFSC.  He was in an authorized 61S3D position from July 1999 through January 2002.  In February 2002, he was moved to an authorized 63A3 position according to historical manning data pulled from the personnel data system.  The DPASA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE states that the DAFSC is the unit manning documents (UMD) authorization the officer is approved for by HQ AFPC and assigned against as of the "thru" date of the report.  The applicant contends that the DAFSC was incorrectly changed on 24 Aug 99, but does not state how or why it was changed.  Further, the only support he provided was a memo from his current commander who was not a rater on any of the reports in question.  He did not provide any letters of support from any of the evaluators on the reports, nor did he provide any evidence, such as computer products, from the time of the reports to substantiate his allegations.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that would warrant correction of the contested OPRs.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded by his assertions that his DAFSC during the time period in question was in error.  Therefore, 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.  Accordingly, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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-2003-01074 in Executive Session on 29 Jul 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPASA, dated 17 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair