RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00058
		INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC), for the period 2 Sep 97 through 15 Jul 99, be considered for promotion in cycle 00E7 for promotion to master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She followed up on the status of her decoration several times with her supervisor and was told it was turned in and being processed.  Even when she received her Data Verification Record (DVR) in December 1999, she again went to her supervisor and informed her that it was not showing on her DVR.  It wasn’t until after the promotion release notification that anyone followed up on what happened to the decoration. 

In support of her request applicant provides a personal statement, copies of email communications associated with her request for supplemental promotion consideration, a copy of her AFAM, her AFAM orders, and documents associated with the AFAM recommendation package.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system (PDS) reflects the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 26 July 1983.  She entered her most recent enlistment contract on 1 July 1998.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 1997.  Records indicate that effective 6 October 2000 she was awarded the AFAM (1OLC), for meritorious service as Noncommissioned Officer in Charge, Senior Officer Management, for the period 2 September 1997 through 15 July 1999. 
    
_________________________________________________________________AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and recommends denial. DPPPWB states that in promotion cycle 00E7 the applicant’s total weighted promotion score was 333.00 and the score required for selection was 333.98.  An AFAM is worth 1 point.  If the AFAM were counted in her total score, she would be selected pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of her commander.  Promotions were made on 31 May 00 and announced on 8 Jun 00. 

DPPPWB states that 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 dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration 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 selection for the cycle in question.  Each promotion cycle has an established PECD which is used to determine what Air Force Specialty Code or Chief Enlisted Manager 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 cycle in question was 31 Dec 99.  DPPPWB states that the special order awarding the applicant’s AFAM does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 00E7 because the RDP date is 10 Jul 00 and it was not placed into official channels until 26 July 00--after selections were made on 31 May 00 for the 00E7 cycle.  Exceptions are only considered when an airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed in military channels within the prescribed time limits and conclusive evidence the recommendation was not acted upon through loss or inadvertence.  DPPPWB further states that the applicant has not provided any conclusive evidence that the decoration was resubmitted before the date of selections and to approve her 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 consider the decoration in the promotion process for cycle 00E7 as an exception to policy, was disapproved by AFPC/DPPPWM, the Office of Primary Responsibility, for enlisted promotions, on 19 Dec 00 and 19 Jan 01 (see Exhibit C).

AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application and recommends denial.  DPPPR states that the applicant submits an incomplete DÉCOR 6, RDP, dated 12 Sep 99, an incomplete copy of a certificate/citation signed supposedly in late Aug/Sep and no published order.  DPPPR states that the applicant’s chain-of-command asserts that a recommendation package was started in 1999 but there is no documentation to show that the package was placed in official channels prior to 10 Jul 00 or that a decoration was approved or awarded prior to 6 Oct 00 (see Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 Feb 02 for review and response.  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 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 error or injustice.  We took careful notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board majority believes that persuasive evidence has not been provided that would lead them to believe that the decoration recommendation was submitted into official channels before the date of selections for the 00E7 cycle.  It is apparent by the statements made by her chain-of-command that a recommendation package was started, however, no documentation to substantiate that it was placed into official channels prior to the promotion cycle was provided.  The Board majority is not unmindful of the impact this decision has on her career; however, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00058 in Executive Session on 17 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  voted to correct the record but elected not to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Feb 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 6 Feb 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Feb 02.