RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01093
				INDEX CODE:  107.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 02E7, with the inclusion of his Air Force Achievement Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM/2OLC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The decoration was in the system before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff  Date (PECD)  and  the  DÉCOR 6 was  generated  prior to 31 December 2002.  His commander had a rigorous TDY schedule and pressing family matters, which resulted in a subsequent move to XXXXX AFB, GA, and his decoration fell through the cracks.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant.

Promotion selections for the cycle 02E7 were made on 17 June 2002, with a public release on 27 June 2002.  The total weighted promotion score required for selection in the applicant’s Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 325.89.  The applicant’s total weighted promotion was 325.18.

On 12 August 2002, a Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) was prepared on the applicant for the purpose of recommending him for AFAM/2OLC.

Per General Order XXXXXX, dated 26 September 2002, the applicant was awarded the AFAM/2OLC for the period 19 November 2001 through 21 December 2001.  The AFAM/2OLC is worth one point in the computation of a member’s total promotion score.

For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a 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 RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  The PECD for cycle 02E7 was 31 December 2001.

The decoration was not considered in the promotion process for cycle 02E7.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states 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).  The date of the DÉCOR-6 Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  The PECD is established for each promotion cycle to determine which Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), as well as which performance reports and decorations are to be used in the promotion consideration process.  A decoration must be verified and documented that it was placed into official channels prior to the selection date.

The applicant’s decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion during cycle 02E7 because his commander did not place the DÉCOR 6 into official channels until 12 August 2002, after selections had been announced and score notices were produced.  This policy was initiated to preclude personnel from submitting someone after promotions selections for a decoration with a retroactive decoration effective date, to put them over the selection cutoff score.  Exceptions to this 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 into military channels within the prescribed time limit and conclusive evidence the recommendation was not acted upon through loss or inadvertence.  The Air Force Awards and Decorations program in accordance with AFI 36-2803 states a decoration is considered to have been placed into the official channels when the decoration recommendation is signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command.

After an extensive review of the circumstances of this case, DPPPWB states there is no conclusive evidence that the applicant’s decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date promotions were announced for cycle 02E7 and his becoming aware that he had missed promotion by less than one point.  To approve the applicant’s request would not be fair or equitable to others in the same situation that missed promotion selection by a narrow margin and are not entitled to have an “after the fact” decoration count in the promotion process.  The promotion Management Section at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) disapproved the applicant’s request to have his decoration included in the promotion process as an exception to policy.

If the dates placed into the official channels were changed, it would not automatically entitle him to be considered for any previous promotion cycles because it was not a matter of record at the time selections were made.

Based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the requested relief.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 May 2003, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting the applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant with the inclusion of the Air Force Achievement Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM/2OLC).  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In order for a decoration to be eligible to be considered in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date and the Recommendation for Decoration Printout must be before the date of selection for the cycle.  From the evidence of record, the applicant’s decoration does not meet the criteria to be considered for promotion consideration for cycle 02E7.  In this respect we note the RDP was not put into official channels until well after the selection date.  The letter from the applicant’s commander is duly noted; however, we do not find this statement, alone, sufficiently compelling to warrant adding the decoration to the record and provide supplemental promotion consideration.  Rather it appears to us that this statement is a well-meaning, after-the-fact attempt to get the applicant promoted.  Such motivations are not sufficient to support a finding that the applicant’s record was incomplete at the time selections were made.  To allow the applicant another opportunity for promotion consideration would be unfair to other military members in similar situations.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01093 in Executive Session on 10 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Apr 03.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.

					
					Panel Chair 

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
FROM:	SAF/MR
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Case on 
I have carefully considered the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the AFBCMR panel that the applicant’s requests should be denied.
The applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of MSgt during cycle 02E7.  He had a total weighted score of 325.18, whereas the score needed for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 325.89.  Promotion selections were made on June 17, 2002 and announced on June 27, 2002.  Applicant’s commander signed the Recommendation for Decoration Printout (DÉCOR 6) on August 2, 2002, recommending the applicant for award of the Air Force Achievement Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM/2OLC) for the period November 19, 2001 through December 21, 2001.  The decoration was awarded to the applicant on September 26, 2002, but was not factored into his score because the DÉCOR 6 was not placed into official channels until August 2, 2002, after selections for cycle 02E7 were announced.  Had the award been factored into the applicant’s score, he would have been selected for promotion to the grade of MSgt.

Applicant appealed to the Board requesting the AFAM/2OLC be included in his records and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of MSgt.  He provided a letter from his former commander explaining the circumstances regarding the late submission of the DÉCOR 6.  On June 10, 2003, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s requests on the basis that the decoration did not meet the criteria for promotion consideration for cycle 02E7.  Specifically, Air Force policy dictates for a decoration to be considered in a promotion cycle, its close-out date must be on or before the promotion eligibility cut-off date (PECD) and the date of the DÉCOR 6 must be on or before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  Further, in the Board’s opinion, the commander’s letter was simply an after-the-fact attempt to get the applicant promoted.  As indicated earlier, I disagree.

In arriving at my decision, I note the applicant’s commander, who is also the Wing Inspector General, asserts that he requested a DÉCOR 6, which was prepared on December 19, 2001, before the PECD, recommending the applicant for the AFAM.  However, through a series of administrative oversights, the DÉCOR 6 “fell through the cracks” and was not processed by his staff before the selections for the promotion cycle were announced.  Having no basis to question the integrity of the commander, I believe the benefit of any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant.  Accordingly, it is my decision the applicant’s requests be granted.

Assistant Secretary
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)

AFBCMR BC-2003-01093
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, be corrected to show that the Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) (Décor-6), for the award of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), covering the period 19 November 2001 through 21 December 2001, was signed by the commander on XXXXX, rather than XXXXXX.
It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E7, with the AFAM 2OLC included in his record.
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 applicant was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that applicant is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

	Director
	Air Force Review Boards Agency