RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01634
		INDEX CODE:  137.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) covering the period 14 March 1993 through 14 March 1998 be considered in the promotion process for cycle 99E6 to technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In essence, that the recommendation for the AFCM had in fact entered into official channels prior to the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) and the promotion selection date for the 99E6 cycle.  However, the package was delayed due to corrections from higher headquarters or misplaced during the change of personnel in the Command Support Staff office.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, letter from Commander XXX, dated 14 May 2001, letter, from Commander XXX, dated 18 April 2000, letter, from Commander XXX, dated 9 September 1999, and other documentation.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Technical Sergeant.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C & D).  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states that the applicant served with the 3rd Services Squadron at Elmendorf AFB, AK during the period 14 March 1995 through 14 March 1998.  Prior to his departure, he discussed an end-of-tour decoration with his supervisor.  A Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) was requested and printed out on 14 March 1998.  Unfortunately, because of a complete change of personnel in the 3rd Services Squadron, delays caused by determination of the level of decoration to be awarded, and administrative re-writes, the recommendation package was not placed in official channels (Attachment 1) until 2 June 1999.  However, this is well within the two-year limitation for submitting a recommendation for a decoration.

Applicant claims his recommendation package was placed in official channels prior to the PECD date of 31 December 1998 and the selection date of 17 May 1999.  However, a copy of the RDP provided by the applicant shows that it was printed out on 14 March 1998, but not signed by the recommending official until 1 June 1999 and not endorsed until 2 June 1999.  Someone, other than the recommending official, changed the date the form was signed from 1 June 1999 to 29 March 1998.

Applicant provided statements from the colonel who commanded the squadron at the time of the applicant’s departure and the colonel who was the subsequent commander who endorsed the recommendation package.  Both colonels state that the recommendation package “entered official channels the 14th day of March 1998;” however, this statement is incorrect, based on the definition of “placed in official channels” set forth in AFI 36-2803 (Attachment 2).  The RDP was printed out on 14 March 1998, not signed or endorsed on that date.  Therefore, the recommendation package could not have been in official channels until 2 June 1999.

The applicant has requested congressional intervention on at least three occasions; each time he has been told that he has not provided any documentation to substantiate his claim that a recommendation package was in official channels prior to the selection date or PECD.  It was noted in the 1 March 2000 response to the applicant’s congressional representative (DD Form 149, Tab 4) that prior to each promotion cycle, each eligible member received a data verification record (DVR), which contains data used in the promotion selection process.  Each member is responsible for reviewing the promotion data on this notice, and it is his/her responsibility to bring any missing or incorrect data to the attention of the military personnel office so the data can be corrected prior to the actual selection process.  The memorandum also stated that the applicant leaves the impression that this decoration did not become an issue until after he found out he was a nonselectee for promotion.  In his last application to his congressional representative, the applicant provided statements from two chief master sergeants that he had asked to review his case.  Unfortunately, their statements are irrelevant, as they are not a part of the approval/disapproval chain of command and have no first-hand knowledge of any of the events.  The only basis for making any changes to the applicant’s RDP would be if there were any proof that the recommendation package had been submitted prior to 2 June 1999; however, since the RDP is the original one requested, and printed out on 14 March 1998 but not filled in until June 1999, they can not verify that any package was submitted into official channels and subsequently lost or not acted upon.

They recommend no changes be made to the Air Force Commendation Medal with Third Oak Leaf Cluster awarded to the applicant for the period 14 March 1993 through 14 March 1998.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that the applicant’s total promotion score for the 99E6 cycle was 331.97, and the score required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code(CAFSC) was 333.76.  The applicant missed promotion selection by 1.79 points.  An AFCM is worth 3 weighted promotion points.  The 3 points this decoration is worth would make him a selectee to technical sergeant during cycle 99E6, pending favorable data verification and the recommendation of his commander.  Promotions for this cycle were made on 17 May 1999 and announced 27 May 1999.

The 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 (AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Recommendation for Decoration Printout (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 Air Force Specialty Code (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 December 1998.  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 decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 99E6 cycle because the DÉCOR 6 was signed by the commander placing the Recommendation for Decoration into official channels on 2 June 1999, after selections were made on 17 May 1999 and announced on 27 May 1999.  This policy was initiated 28 February 1979 to specifically preclude personnel from subsequently (after promotion selections) submitting someone for a decoration with a retroactive decoration effective date (close out) so as to put them over the selection cutoff score.  Exceptions to the above policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed into military channels within the prescribed time limit and conclusive evidence the recommendation was not acted upon through loss or inadvertence.  IAW AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, paragraph 3.1, a decoration is considered to have been placed into official channels when the decoration recommendation is signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command.

After an extensive review of the circumstances of this case to include documentation provided, there is no conclusive evidence the decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date promotions were announced for the 99E6 cycle and the applicant became aware that he had missed promotion by less than 2 points.  To approve this request would not be fair or equitable to many others in the same situation who miss promotion selection by a narrow margin and are not entitled to have an “after the fact” decoration count in the promotion process.  The applicant’s request to have the decoration included in the promotion process for this cycle as an exception to policy was disapproved by the Promotion Management Section at HQ Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC).  They concur with this action.  If the dates placed into official channels were changed it would not automatically entitle him to be supplementally considered for any previous promotion cycles, as it was not a matter of record at the time selections were made.  However, if the AFBCMR grants the request, it could direct supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 99E6.  As a matter of information the applicant became a select for cycle, 00E6 which will increment September/October 2001 time frame.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a response which is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) covering the period 14 March 1993 through 14 March 1998 be considered in the promotion process for cycle 99E6 to technical sergeant (TSgt).  After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted with this application, we are not persuaded that the award was placed in official channels prior to the announcement of selections for promotion cycle 99E6.  It appears the award was initiated in March 1998 but was returned by the unit commander to the applicant’s supervisor for further evaluation; therefore, it did not enter official channels at that time.  The statements provided by the applicant are duly noted; however, they do not conclusively substantiate the award was placed in official channels (i.e., signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command) as asserted by the applicant during the contested time period.  Apparently, the applicant’s new commander submitted the award package which was forwarded to the next higher authority and ultimately approved.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 probable 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 27 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 2 August 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 August 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 August 2001.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 September 2001.