RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02032
							INDEX CODE:  107.00
  							COUNSEL:  NONE
  							HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive credit for his Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), and one point be added to his test score for cycle 01E6.  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unfairly denied promotion during the 01E6 testing cycle due to the mishandling of his decoration recommendation.  His decoration was requested prior to the end of CY2000 and was signed on 26 January 2001 by the detachment commander; however, it was not properly entered in his record prior to the closeout of the 01E6 board cycle.  As a result, he missed the cut-off for promotion to technical sergeant by one-tenth of a point.

He was recommended for an AFAM for his duties performed during a TDY assignment from 10 August through 7 December 2000.  He followed up in March 2001.  By 27 July 2001, he still had not heard anything about the decoration package.  After numerous calls and emails to RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus, the decoration package was located and forwarded to him on 7 September 2001.  On 21 December 2001 his decoration package was sent for Supplemental Promotion Consideration.  On 25 February 2002, HQ AFPC advised him that the AFAM would not count toward his WAPS score of cycle 01E6 and advised him that if he felt an injustice was done, he should submit a petition to the Board.  The intent of the supervisor and squadron commander was to recommend him for an AFAM.  Due to no negligence of his own, his decoration paperwork was lost.  As a result, he was not promoted to technical sergeant.  

In support of his request applicant provides a personal statement, email communication regarding his AFAM decoration, a letter of recommendation from the commander for award of the AFAM, and other associated documents relating to the AFAM; copies of the order and AFAM citation; and letters of support from his supervisor, detachment and current commander.  

The applicant’s 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 March 1985.  He entered his most recent enlistment contract on 14 June 1999.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 2002.  The PDS further shows that he has been awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal with 1 oak leaf cluster (OLC), Joint Service Commendation Medal and the Air Force Achievement Medal with 3 OLCs.  The 3rd OLC for the AFAM was for outstanding achievement during the period 10 August through 7 December 2000.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPWB states that the applicant’s total weighted promotion score for the 01E6 cycle was 318.01 and the score required for selection was 318.11.  If the decoration were counted in the applicant’s total score, he would become a selectee for promotion pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of his commander.  Promotion selections for this cycle were made on 31 May 2001 with a public release date of 7 June 2001.

DPPPWB states that there are two separate and distinct policies regarding the approval of decoration and the credit of a decoration for promotion purposes.  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, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selection for the cycle in question.  The PECD for the cycle 01E6 was 31 December 2000.  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.  Applicant’s record indicates that the DÉCOR-6 signed by the detachment commander on 1 November 2001 did not recommend the applicant for the decoration.  On 20 May 2002, the commander reversed his decision and recommended approval.  The decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 01E6 cycle because it was not placed into official channels until after selections were made on 29 May 2001.  

DPPPWB further states that to approve the applicant’s 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 cycle 01E6 as an exception to policy was disapproved by DPPPWM, the Office of Primary Responsibility for enlisted promotions on 24 January 2002.

AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR has no recommendation regarding this issue.  DPPPR states that since the request for decoration printout (DÉCOR-6) was printed on 8 December 2000 and had to be faxed to the deployed site in Cyprus for the recommendation package to be assembled, then mailed to the applicant’s home site to be processed, it is unreasonable to believe that the recommendation package could be processed and approved prior to 31 December 2000 (PECD for the cycle 01E6).  The applicant has not explained where the package was found, why it was removed from administrative channels and sent directly to him, or why he did not put it back into administrative channels at his home station when he received it.  

AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he had the decoration package forwarded to him so that it would not get lost again.  As soon as he received the package he tried to get it submitted in the proper channels.  The recommendation not to approve the award was done by his previous supervisor who did not get along with him.  However, the commander approved the decoration on 1 November 2001.  The letter signed by his commander on 20 May 2002, was done to explain that had the decoration been submitted earlier, he would have approved it.  

Applicant reiterates that had the decoration been processed in a timely manner the decoration package would not be a problem.  The decoration would have been awarded before the promotion cycle 01E6 and could have been added to his test scores.  His decoration package was started in December 2000, which was six months before promotions were announced and subsequently lost at the end of January 2001 and not found again until September 2001.

The applicant’s response, with attachments, 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.  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 Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) was placed into official channels in sufficient time to be considered in the 01E6 promotion cycle.  It appears that due to administrative errors beyond the applicant’s control, the recommendation was lost somewhere in the administrative process.  In reviewing the letters from the deployed detachment commander and the host base commander, we believe that the intent, direction, and desire of the applicant’s immediate chain of command was to have the award placed into proper channels in sufficient time to be considered in the 01E6 promotion cycle.  The host base commander, who was the approval/disapproval authority for the award, indicated that had the decoration been submitted at either an earlier or later date, his recommendation would have been the same.  Given the unequivocal support from the senior officers involved, and having no basis to question their integrity, it is our opinion that the benefit of doubt in this matter should be resolved in favor of the applicant.  Therefore, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent 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 his Air Force Achievement Medal, Third Oak Leaf Cluster for the period 10 August 2000 through 7 December 2000 was placed into official channels on 31 December 2000.

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

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 on the individual’s qualifications for the promotion.

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 he 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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 8 January 2003, 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 17 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Personnel Record.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Aug 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 31 Jul 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Aug 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 02, w/atchs.