RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01125
		INDEX CODE:  131.01  107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) second oak leaf cluster (2OLC), awarded for the period 1 Feb 01 through 15 Mar 01, be included in his promotion cycle 01E7 selection process to master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The paperwork to award him the AFAM was started in November 2000 but was not completed due to his commander being on temporary duty (TDY) and his subsequent permanent change of station (PCS), as well as problems with PC-III.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a statement from his commanders, a copy of his promotion cycle 01E7 Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) score notice, and documents associated with the processing of his AFAM 2OLC.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 23 May 85.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Mar 99.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant in the 01E7 promotion cycle.  

The remaining 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 at Exhibits B and C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant's request and states that the letters attached to his application show that the initial paperwork submitted in November 2000 was not a final recommendation package, since a DÉCOR-6 did not accompany the package recommending the whole flight for an AFAM.  In February 2001 the unit tried to finalize the recommendation package on the applicant, but had not ordered a DÉCOR-6 while he was still in the unit.  Therefore, they had to order it from his new unit in England, on 16 Jul 01.  Any decoration recommendation package will have delays, but the administrative delays in this case did not start until February 2001, when the package was being finalized.  Prior to then, it was considered a draft.  Decoration recommendations are required to be submitted within 2 years and awarded within 3 years of the act, accomplishment, or service performed.  His AFAM was processed and awarded well within the time limits.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPWB states that his total WAPS score for cycle 01E7 was 329.96 and the score required for selection in his Air Force specialty was 330.86.  The AFAM, if counted in his total score would make him a selectee.  Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  In addition, a decoration that a members claims was lost, downgraded, etc., must be fully documented and verified that it was placed into official channels prior to the selection date.  The PECD for the cycle in question was 31 Dec 00.  

The decoration does not meet the criteria for credit during the 01E7 cycle because the DÉCOR-6 date is 16 Jul 01--after the selections were made on 29 May 01 for the 01E7 cycle.  This policy was initiated in 1979 specifically to preclude individuals from subsequently submitting someone for a decoration with a retroactive close-out date so as to put them over the selection cut-off score.  Exceptions are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially in military channels with in the prescribed time limit and the recommendation was not acted upon through loss or inadvertence.  A decoration is considered to have been placed into official channels when the DÉCOR-6 is signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command.  The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 May 02 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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the AFAM in question should be considered in the promotion process for cycle 01E7.  We note that in order for a decoration to be credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD and the date of the DÉCOR‑6 must be before the date of selections for a particular cycle.  In this respect, convincing evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date selections were made for the 01E7 cycle.  In view of the foregoing, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02-01125 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
                                                
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 17 Apr 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.