RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01395
		INDEX CODE:  107.00 131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be considered in the selection process for the 00E6 and 01E6 promotion cycles.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His supervisor initiated a recommendation for award of the AFCM on 4 Nov 99.  The medal was prepared and turned into the commander's support staff (CSS) prior to the 15 Dec 99 suspense date.  During the March/April 2000 timeframe he inquired about the status of the medal and was told that it had been forwarded to the wing for review and signature.  However, when he received his score notice, the medal was not included.  He attempted to track down the medal for several months and in January 2001 it was concluded that the medal was lost and needed to be reaccomplished.  His supervisor told him he would resubmit the recommendation, yet, before he was able to resubmit the documentation, he was notified that he was not selected for promotion for the 01E6 cycle by 0.81 points.  In June 01, his new supervisor was instructed to reaccomplish the recommendation.  A search of the CSS for a copy of the original Décor-6 proved unsuccessful and another Décor-6 had to be requested.  His decoration was not awarded to him until 16 Aug 01.

Through no fault of his own the recommendation was not processed in a timely manner.  It was lost within the military personnel flight (MPF) and the CSS.  He requested supplemental promotion consideration, with the included AFCM and his request was denied.  He provided credible evidence that documented the original submission of the recommendation.

In support of his request applicant provided, a personal statement, documents associated with his request for supplemental promotion consideration; and, an extract from AFI 36-2803, General Administrative Practices.  Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 16 Nov 92.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 98.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of technical during the 00E6 and 01E6 promotion cycles.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPR states that the Décor-6 he provided is dated 12 Jul 01 and it was endorsed on 31 Jul 01.  He did not provide any official documentation showing that a previous DÉCOR-6 was signed and endorsed prior to that time.  Any decoration package will have administrative delays.  His decoration was processed and awarded well within the prescribed time limitations.  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 00E6 was 279.72 and the score required for selection in his Air Force specialty was 316.83.  His total WAPS score for cycle 01E6 was 312.63 and the score required for selection in his Air Force specialty was 313.44.  The AFCM, if counted in his total score would make him a selectee for the 01E6 cycle.  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 01E6 cycle in question was 31 Dec 00 and the promotion selections were made on 29 May 01.  

The decoration does not meet the criteria for credit during the 01E6 cycle because the DÉCOR-6 date is 12 Jul 01--after the selections were made on 29 May 01.  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 within 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:

Applicant states that the loss of a medal after it was in the possession of decoration officials is not an administrative delay as the Air Force evaluation states.  This is not an ordinary occurrence as the evaluation makes it sound.  Both evaluations did not take into account that the original package was submitted in December 1999 and was lost through no fault of his own.  The second Décor-6 was ordered so that the medal could be resubmitted.  An original Décor-6 cannot be ordered by the PC-III computer system with the original dates.  He is not some cheater who is trying to submit a medal after finding out he missed promotion by less than a point.  He has been actively in pursuit of this medal since January 2000.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence submitted in support of his appeal, it is our opinion that credible evidence has been provided to show that the original AFCM was placed into official channels in sufficient time to be considered in the 00E6 and 01E6 promotion cycles.  It appears that due to administrative errors beyond the applicant's control, the recommendation was lost somewhere in the administrative process.  In accordance with AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.1.1, such recommendations can be resubmitted.  In light of the above, we believe that this matter should be resolved in the applicant's favor.  We note that his total score in the 00E6 promotion cycle was 279.72 and the score required for selection in his Air Force specialty was 316.83.  Since inclusion of the AFCM in the 00E6 selection process would not result in his selection for promotion, we see no reason to recommend supplemental consideration for that cycle.  Accordingly, we believe it appropriate that he only receive supplemental promotion consideration for the 01E6 cycle and 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 23 June 1993 to 15 December 1999, was endorsed by his commander on 31 December 1999.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for promotion cycle 01E6.

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 the 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.

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 of the individual's qualifications for the promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01395 in Executive Session on 1 Aug 02, 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 26 Feb 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 May 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 14 May 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jun 02.

AFBCMR 02-01395

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 23 June 1993 to 15 December 1999, was endorsed by his commander on 31 December 1999.

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for promotion cycle 01E6.

	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 the 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.

	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 of the individual's qualifications for the promotion.