RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01960
		INDEX CODES:  107.00, 131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be updated to reflect receipt of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) for the period 2 May 96 to 26 Sep 97 on 31 Jan 98.

He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for cycle 01E8, with inclusion of the AFAM.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records did not accurately reflect award of the AFAM, which subsequently resulted in his nonselection for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant during cycle 01E8. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, supportive statements from his former commander and supervisor, and his promotion score notice.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Apr 98.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 30 Jul 84.

By Special Order Number GA 289, dated 19 Feb 02, the applicant was awarded the AFAM for meritorious service as Noncommissioned Officer In Charge of Life Support, XXd Airlift Squadron, XXXXXXXXX Air Force Base (AFB), AXXXX, during the period 2 May 96 to 26 Sep 97.  The Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) (DECOR-6) date was 17 Dec 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial.  They noted that the applicant’s (DECOR-6) was dated 17 Dec 01, which was the date the DÉCOR-6 was printed, and it was signed on 20 Dec 01 by the squadron commander.  The certificate/citation was signed on 13 Feb 02, and the order was published on 19 Feb XXXXXXXX XXXX stated that he “forwarded an award package for an Air Force Commendation Medal” when the applicant received a short-notice PCS, neither he nor the applicant provided any official documentation showing that a recommendation package was submitted into official channels (signed by the recommending official and endorsed by the next higher official in the chain of command) prior to 17 Dec 01.  The applicant did not provide any documents showing he attempted to resolve the matter through administrative channels prior to submitting a DD Form 149.  He did not provide the complete recommendation package, as an exception to policy that would have had to be submitted with the package, justifying the delay of more than two years before the package was submitted.  The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation, other than missing promotion by 0.64 points, to justify changing the date the DECOR-6 was signed or the date the order was published to 3l Jan 98.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial indicating that there are two separate and distinct policies regarding the approval of a decoration and the credit of a decoration for promotion purposes.  Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) 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 DECOR-6, must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  Each promotion cycle has an established PECD which is used to determine what 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 cycle in question was 30 Sep 00.  In addition, a decoration that a member claims was lost, downgraded, etc., must be fully documented and verified that it was placed into official channels prior to the selection date.

AFPC/DPPPWB stated that, as evidenced by the special order awarding the applicant’s AFAM, the decoration did not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 01E8 cycle because the RDP date was 17 Dec 01--after selections were made on 23 Feb 01 for the 01E8 cycle.  This policy was initiated on 28 Feb 79 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 in military channels within the prescribed time limit and conclusive evidence the recommendation was not acted upon through loss or inadvertence.  In accordance with AFI 36-2803, 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.  Again, resubmitted decorations (because initial decoration was downgraded, lost, etc.,) must be placed into official channels prior to the promotion selection date.  There was no indication this package was reaccomplished and placed into official channels until 17 Dec 01 (RDP Date), which was after promotions for the 01E8 cycle were announced (7 Mar 01) and the applicant became aware he missed promotion by less than three points.  Although the applicant believes the RDP date should be changed to a date earlier than 17 Dec 01, this change would still not entitle him to supplemental promotion consideration for the 01E8 cycle as the change would be done after the fact—after 23 Feb 01, the date promotion selections were accomplished.

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that after an extensive review of the circumstances of this case to include documentation the applicant has provided, there was no conclusive evidence the lost decoration was resubmitted before the date of selections for the 01E8 cycle.  While they are acutely aware of the impact this recommendation has on the applicant’s career, the fact is the lost decoration was not resubmitted until after selections for this cycle were made.  To approve the applicant’s request would not be fair or equitable to many others in the same situation who missed promotion selection by a narrow margin and were not entitled to have an “after the fact” decoration count in the promotion process.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response indicating that the heart of this issue is that the AFAM was drafted and forwarded but never received.  The missing medal resulted in his nonselection for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant.  Even if the decoration had taken twelve months to be routed and approved, he still would have received it well in advance of the promotion eligibility cut-off for cycle 01E8.  The issue of the missing medal was compounded by faulty answers from the very same persons who could have helped him correct the issue in 1998 when he first asked about it.  Letters he provided from both his squadron and flight commanders confirmed the fact that a decoration was submitted on his behalf during his permanent change of station (PCS).  In his view, the issue of using the DECOR-6 as “proof” that a decoration was placed into official channels before the promotion cycle cut-off date is unfair because it places the burden of proof on the person least likely to possess it.  He is asking for a fair examination of the facts and the impact it has had on his career.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, a majority of the Board does not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  No evidence was presented which showed to the Board majority’s satisfaction that the decoration was placed in official channels prior to the date of selection for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence that the AFAM met the criteria for promotion credit during the 01E8 cycle, a majority of the Board adopts the Air Force rationale and concludes that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01960 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  Mr. XXXX voted to grant the appeal but did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 10 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Sep 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Oct 02.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-01960

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.

				
							   Director
							   Air Force Review Boards Agency