RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02180
		INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for the period 1 December 1996 - 15 November 2000 be considered for cycle 01E6 (promotion to technical sergeant).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The record is in error because the cited award met the requirements to be placed into official channels.  Per AFP 36-2241, Volume l, 13.24.2, any person, other than the individual being recommended, having first hand knowledge of the act, achievement or service may recommend an individual for a decoration.  Per AFI 36-2803 a recommendation is placed in official channels when the recommending official signs the recommendation and a higher official in the chain of command endorses it.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a Special Order, which includes the Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) date of 12 August 2000, AF Form 2224, Decoration, AF Form 614, waps score notice and email traffic.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant.

The applicant’s total promotion score for cycle 01E6 was 328.49 and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 329.23.

Applicant’s request that the contested decoration be included in the promotion process for cycle 01E6 as an exception to policy was disapproved by the Promotion Management Section at AFPC.

Applicant was selected for promotion to technical sergeant for cycle 04E6, with a promotion sequence number of 2939, which should be incremented approximately 1 January 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB states this decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during cycle 01E6 because it was not reworked/resubmitted until late July/early August 2001, after selections were made on 29 May and announced on 7 June 2001.  There is no conclusive evidence the decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date promotions were announced for cycle 01E6 and the applicant became aware that he had missed promotion by less than one point.  As a matter of fact, the applicant provides documents to the contrary.  To approve this 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 this cycle as an exception to policy was disapproved by the Promotion Management Section at the Air Force Personnel Center.  They concur with this decision.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states as current Air Force promotion policy mandates, before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cut-off date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  However, the AFPC/DPPW message, dated 12 October 2001, denying him promotion consideration under a supplemental board, recognizes there are occasional instances of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and administrative delays in decoration recommendation processing.  Additionally, AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Note 2, states that “if the date of the special order is the month selections are made or later, send the following documents to HQ AFPC/DPPPWM Special Order, citation, décor 6, amendments if any, and documentation when decoration was placed into official channels.  The AFPC message and AFI 36-2502 thereby concedes that individual cases do exist where Air Force members are wronged by administrative oversights relating to the decoration process.

AFPC/DPPPWB infers that this decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during cycle 01E6 because it is their position the decoration was not resubmitted until after selections were made on 29 May 2001.  But 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.  His unit records were checked out at the military personnel flight (MPF) on 13 April 2001 by SrA --- (orderly room personnel).  These records were checked out for the resubmission of the commendation medal.  This was done almost two months before the release of promotion results.  The decoration was rewritten by the squadron superintendent (AFP 36-2241 Volume 1, 13.24.2 any person, other than the individual being recommended, having firsthand knowledge of the act, achievement, or service may recommend an individual for a decoration) and endorsed by the squadron commander.  As evidenced by the 21 December 2001 email.  The commander was under the assumption that because she was his supervisor she did not count as official channels.  At that time neither she nor he were aware of what AFI 36-2803 considered as official channels.  The commander had one sentence deleted about CDC pass rate and one added to mention the development of a CBT data base, however, this does not detract from the fact that the decoration had already been endorsed several weeks before results were released.

AFPC/DPPPWB calls this decoration an “after the fact” decoration, but based on the RDP, the accompanying citation and the email documentation this is not merely an “after the fact” decoration.  The original decoration dated 2 December 1996 - 2 August 2000 was sent back for reasons discussed in the email documentation.  The resubmission process began in April of 2001 and the rewrite was delayed through no fault of his own.  To call this decoration an “after the fact” decoration contradicts the evidence and email documentation provided.  This decoration was in the works months before promotion results were released.  To call it an “after the fact” decoration questions the integrity of not only himself but also the squadron commander, group commander and the wing commander.  He would never have pursued this, as he has maintained throughout, if the decoration did not exist.  To deny him promotion for the 01E6 cycle would not be fair or equitable to him and it would question AFPC’s system that acknowledges that occasional instances of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and administrative delays in decoration recommendation processing do occur.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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 the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the contested decoration was not placed into official channels prior to the date promotions were announced for cycle 01E6.  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 this application in Executive Session on 16 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Jul 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 10 Sep 04.