RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00668
		INDEX CODE 107.00131.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be afforded supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) for cycle 01E6 with the Air Force Commendation Medal, 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM 1OLC) in his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has proven that this decoration was submitted prior to the selection date by submitting two DECOR-6s and two coordination sheets. HQ AFPC/DPPPWM contradicted its findings in its two considerations of this case. Since HQ AFPC/DPPPWM instructed his servicing military personnel flight (MPF) to correct his record to reflect the closeout date as 30 Jun 00, the decoration should be included in the 01E6 promotion cycle. There is no conspiracy between his previous superintendent/first sergeant, squadron commander and his servicing MPF to get him promoted.  This decoration was to acknowledge his past accomplishments and it is disturbing that the Air Force insinuates this award was submitted for promotion purposes. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with 12 attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of TSgt, with a date of rank of 1 Nov 02.  He was selected for promotion by the 02E6 cycle.

AFI 36-2502 dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  A decoration that a member claims was lost, downgraded, etc., must be fully documented and verified showing it was placed into official channels prior to the selection date. According to AFI 36-2803, a decoration is 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. 

The PECD for cycle 01E6 was 31 Dec 00.  

A DECOR-6, dated 6 Jun 00, recommended the applicant for the AFCM 1OLC as an end-of-tour decoration for the period 20 Oct 93 to 30 Jun 00. It was signed on 26 Jun 00 and endorsed on 28 Jun 00.  The recommendation package arrived for approval/disapproval/downgrade on 24 Jul 00 and was returned on 25 Jul 00 because the group commander wanted to downgrade the decoration to an Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM).  At that point the process stopped.

On 1 Feb 01, a second DECOR-6 was requested for the AFCM 1OLC for the period 20 Oct 93 to 26 Jan 01 (rather than 30 Jun 00). The package was originally submitted for permanent change of assignment (PCA - change of duty, same base), but “PCA” was crossed out and “Extended Tour” was written by paragraph E. The DECOR-6 was signed on 12 Feb 01.

Promotion selections for cycle 01E6 were announced on 7 Jun 01; the applicant was not a selectee for TSgt.

On 18 Jun 01 the order awarding the applicant the AFCM 1OLC was published for the period 20 Oct 93 to 26 Jan 01. 

On 9 Jul 01, the applicant’s squadron commander asked the MPF to change the closeout date from 26 Jan 01 to 30 Jun 00 (the closeout date of the 6 Jun 00 DECOR-6). On 8 Aug 01, the MPF amended the original order and changed the closeout date of the decoration to 30 Jun 00.

The applicant applied for supplemental promotion consideration on 27 Aug 01.  His request to have the decoration included in the promotion process for cycle 01E6 was denied by the Promotion Management Section at AFPC on 11 Dec 01 and again on 1 Jul 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the squadron commander did not request a change of the closeout date of the decoration until 9 Jul 01, and the applicant applied for supplemental promotion consideration on 27 Aug 01, after the closeout date was changed.  Since the squadron commander signed the valid DECOR-6 in Feb 01, with the closeout date of 26 Jan 01, that is the proper closeout date. The closeout date was not contested until after the selection date. The second package is considered to be the only valid recommendation package, even though the squadron commander used the closeout date from the first recommendation package. The decoration was properly processed within AFI 36-2803 timelines. In view of the dates of the actions taken, DPPPR agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPWM’s assessment (Exhibit A) that the closeout date of the decoration was changed to meet the 01E6 PECD so the decoration points could be used toward WAPS calculations.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB asserts there is no conclusive evidence the amended/resubmitted decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date promotions were announced for cycle 01E6 and the applicant became aware he had missed promotion by less than two points. To approve this request would be unfair or inequitable 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 was disapproved by the Promotion Management Session at AFPC on 11 Dec 01 and again on 1 Jul 02. DPPPWB concurs with this action and recommends denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 May 03 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the AFCM 1OLC should be included for consideration in the 01E6 promotion cycle. The original AFCM 1OLC package met both the PECD and selection announcement date requirements for cycle 01E6. However, on 25 Jun 00, the group commander rejected and returned the award package for downgrading to an AFAM. Another DECOR-6 package for the AFCM 1OLC was not submitted until 1 Feb 01. This time the decoration was submitted as an “Extended Tour” rather than a PCA award, and its closeout date was changed from 30 Jun 00 to 26 Jan 01. The award’s new closeout date was beyond the 31 Dec 00 PECD, rendering it ineligible for cycle 01E6 consideration. Selections for cycle 01E6 were announced on 7 Jun 01, and the applicant barely missed promotion to TSgt. The squadron commander did not request changing the closeout date to 30 Jun 00 until 9 Jul 01, nearly five months after the second DECOR-6, with the 26 Jan 01 closeout date, was signed and more than a month after the cycle 01E6 selections were announced. The applicant’s submission, including the 9 July 01 squadron letter, does not provide specifics regarding the commanders’ intentions, the alleged administrative errors, the “back and forth” and “behind the scenes” discussions, justification attempts and mission requirements that supposedly impacted the closeout dates and reasons for, as well as processing of, this award. Further, as the applicant’s presentation does not persuasively rebut the HQ AFPC Promotion Management Section’s two earlier disapprovals, we are reluctant to overturn those determinations. In view of the above, we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 3 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00668 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 25 Mar 03.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Apr 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair