RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03776

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) date for the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) he was awarded be changed from 21 January 2003 to 29 April 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The squadron failed to input the RDP date prior to processing because a dummy RDP was used instead of a computer generated one.  Once the decoration was approved the squadron input the current date of 21 January 2003, which was incorrect.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a statement from the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Chief, a copy of the decoration package and the orders and citation to accompany award of the AAM.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

Promotion selections for cycle 02E6 were made on 18 June 2002 and announced on 27 June 2002.  The total weighted promotion score required for selection in the applicant's Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 320.35.  The applicant's total weighted promotion score was 318.24.  The Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) was 31 December 2001.

On 21 January 2003, an RDP was placed into official channels recommending him for the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM).  Headquarters ---nd Mission Support Squadron, Special Order --- -----, dated 3 March 2003, awarded him the AAM for the period 4 September 1999 to 28 December 2001.  The AAM is worth 3 points in the computation of a member’s total weighted promotion score.

For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.

Since the RDP was prepared after selections for cycle 02E6 were announced, the decoration was not considered in the promotion process for the cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that since the RDP prepared on the applicant did not have a date of initial printout, the date the decoration was placed in official channels was used (21 January 2003).  While he provides copies of computer screens in an effort to show that his decoration was initiated on 29 April 2002, he provides no evidence to indicate that it was placed into official channels prior to 21 January 2003.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, that 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 PECD, and the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  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.  The decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 02E6 cycle because there is no tangible evidence the decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date selections for the cycle were made.  Documentation included in his case file reflects the decoration was not officially placed into military channels until after selections for the 02E6 cycle were accomplished.  

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Compared with the other Air Force members awarded the AAM on special order --- ----, it is obvious his RDP date is in error.  Upon his Permanent Change Station (PCS), he was assured the AAM was being worked.  His commanders at all levels approved the recommendation in April 2002.  Furthermore, the MPF Chief admits to the unit’s use of “dummy” RDPs at the time his decoration was initiated, which affected the entire process and created his delayed award presentation.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 careful review of the evidence provided, we are persuaded that the recommendation for the Aerial Achievement Medal was placed into official channels prior to selections for cycle 02E6.  In this respect, we noted the statement from the Awards and Decorations Monitor at the applicant’s former unit who indicated that based on recurring problems with the Military Personnel Data System and PC-III during the period in question, there was a practice in a few of the organizations to use a “dummy” Recommendation for Decoration Printout (DECOR-6).  However, this was not an official document and did not contain all of the information required on a DECOR‑6, one of them being the RDP date.  In view of this, and given the deployment of the squadron support staff, an official RDP was not prepared until after selections for cycle O2E6.  Based on a preponderance of the evidence presented, we believe the applicant’s rating chain intended for the decoration to be processed, approved, and filed in his records prior to selections for cycle O2E6.  Therefore, we do not believe he should be penalized for this administrative oversight and recommend 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 the Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) for the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) awarded for the period 4 October 1999 to 28 December 2001, was signed by the commander on 29 April 2002, rather than 21 January 2003.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles, beginning with cycle O2E6.

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 the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's qualification for the promotion.  

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the 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 Docket Number BC-2002-03776 in Executive Session on 5 November 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 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 Aug 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Oct 03, w/atch.

AFBCMR BC-2002-03776

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 the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) awarded for the period 4 October 1999 to 28 December 2001, was signed by the commander on 29 April 2002, rather than 21 January 2003.

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles, beginning with cycle O2E6.

	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 the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's qualification for the promotion.  

	If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the 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.