RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01357
		INDEX NUMBER:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) covering the period 4 Jul 87 - 1 Dec 91 be considered in the promotion process for cycle (sic 92E5) to staff sergeant even though his RDP date does not meet the criteria for consideration for this cycle.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Nov 92, while assigned at Keflavik Air Base Iceland, applicant was asked to provide Seymour Johnson a decoration rip (DECOR6) because his original DECOR6 was lost and his chain of command did not realize it until Aug 92.  

In Feb 94, he received his permanent change of station (PCS) decoration, however, because the RDP was later than the date of PECD date for cycle (sic 92E5), his decoration was not eligible for promotion consideration.  In Jun 94, he applied to HQ AFPC for supplemental consideration but his request was denied.  He further states only recently did he learn that he could apply to the AFBCMR.

In support of his request applicant provides copies of his decoration, order, and citation; supporting statements from his former Chief Enlisted Manager, a statement from his former supervisor, orderly room personnel, and his former Shift Chief.

A complete copy of his submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the applicant’s request and stated that the Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) dated 12 Nov 92 was entered into official channels, but the recommendation was disapproved.  The package was rewritten, resubmitted and then approved.  

They further state that the applicant’s AFCM was processed and awarded within the three-year time limit and that there were no discrepancies found.  They, therefore, recommend that no changes be made to any documents regarding the applicant’s AFCM.

A complete copy of the Air Force Evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant stated the wrong cycle and he actually means the 93A5 cycle, which he missed selection by less than 3 points.  Applicant’s total promotion score for the 93A5 cycle was 295.97 and the score required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 298.88.  He missed promotion selection by .94 of a point.  An AFCM is worth 3 weighted promotion points.  This decoration would make applicant a selectee to staff sergeant during cycle 93A5, pending a favorable data verification and the recommendation of his commander.

DPPPWB states that policies regarding the approval of a decoration and the credit of a decoration for promotion purposes are two separate and distinct policies.  Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that, before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR‑6, RDP, must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  Each promotion cycle has an established PECD which is used to determine in which AFSC or Chief Enlisted Manager (CEM) code the member will be considered, as well as which performance reports and decorations will be used in the promotion consideration.  The PECD for the promotion cycle in question was 31 Mar 92.  In addition, a decoration that a member claims was lost, downgraded, etc., must be verified and fully documented that it was placed into official channels prior to the selection date.  This also includes decorations that were disapproved initially but subsequently resubmitted and approved.

DPPPWB states that this decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 93A5 cycle because there is no tangible evidence the resubmitted decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date selections for the 93A5 cycle were made.  In accordance with AFI 36‑2803, paragraph 3‑1, a decoration is considered to have been placed in official channels when the decoration recommendation is signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command.

DPPPWB further states that documentation included in the applicant’s case file reflects the decoration recommendation package was not officially placed into military channels until after selections for the 93A5 cycle were accomplished.  The orders are dated 18 Jan 94, with an RDP date of 12 Nov 92.  There is no tangible evidence the decoration was placed into official channels before selections for the 93A5 cycle were made and to approve the applicant’s request would not be fair or equitable to many others in the same situation who also missed promotion selection by a narrow margin.  The applicant’s request to have the decoration included in the promotion process for the 93A5 cycle as an exception to policy was disapproved by the Promotion Management Section at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and DPPPWB concurs with their decision.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 15 Jun 01 for review and response.  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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the documentation provided, we are convinced that the AFCM should have been included in the applicant's selection process for promotion cycle 93A5.  Air Force policy states that a recommendation is placed into official channels when the recommending official signs the recommendation and a higher official in the chain of command endorses it.  A statement provided by the applicant's former supervisor, co-workers and orderly personnel indicated that they recall the recommendation in December 1991, which we determined to be credible evidence that would lead us to believe that the AFCM was placed into official channels within the prescribed time limits.  It appears that, due to an administrative oversight beyond the applicant's control, the recommendation was lost somewhere in the administrative process, resubmitted and finally approved.  In light of the above, we believe that this matter should be resolved in the applicant's favor.  Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) for award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), covering the period 4 Jul 87 - 1 Dec 91, was endorsed by his commander on 15 Dec 91.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for promotion cycle 93A5.

If selected for promotion to staff sergeant by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for this promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual's qualifications for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to any higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 9 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 4 Jun 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Jun 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.

                                   	
                                   Chair

AFBCMR 01-01357

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) for award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), covering the period 4 Jul 87 - 1 Dec 91, was endorsed by his commander on 15 Dec 91.

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for promotion cycle 93A5.

	If selected for promotion to staff sergeant by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

	If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for this promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual's qualifications for the promotion.

	If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to any higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

			
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency