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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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.