RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01357 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His award of the Air Force Achievement Medal with first Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM w/1OLC), for the period 17 August 2005 to 13 April 2007, be accepted for the 2010 technical sergeant (E-6) (TSgt) promotion cycle (10E6). ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His AFAM w/1OLC was awarded prior to the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD). He missed promotion to TSgt by one point. He did not have proof of the award in question at the time because it was lost during his permanent change of station (PCS) move. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his AFAM w/1OLC citation and order; and, his request for supplemental promotion consideration. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s records are unavailable for review. Therefore, the only information available is that which is provided by the applicant and which is contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the first time the decoration in question (worth one point) would have been used in the promotion process was cycle 08E6 to the grade of TSgt. At the time of the DPSOE evaluation, the applicant had been considered and non-selected for promotion to TSgt three times (cycles 08E6, 09E6, and 10E6). He is eligible to be considered for promotion by the 11E6 promotion cycle. DPSOE indicates that in his request for supplemental promotion consideration, the applicant acknowledges he received two AFAMs. He also states that after testing for cycle 10E6 and reviewing his record, he noticed only one AFAM was listed but assumed it was the AFAM w/1OLC. Since he had two decorations, he should have inquired at that time as to why only one was listed. However, he admits to waiting until after the results were released and he had missed promotion by less than one point. Had he been verifying his record during the past two cycles, he would have noticed that the decoration wasn’t updated then either. DPSOE indicates that in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, paragraphs 2.7.6.2 and 2.8, airmen obtain and review Data Verification Records (DVRs) along with score notices on the virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF), review electronic records in the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) and senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO) selection folders to ensure data is correct; and, must notify the appropriate Military Personnel Service workcenter or agency for correction of any errors. Supplemental promotion consideration will not be granted if the error or omission appeared on/in the airman’s DVR, ARMS record, or SNCO selection folder and no corrective or follow-up action was taken by the airman prior to the promotion selection date for staff sergeant (E-5) through master sergeant (E-7), and prior to the original evaluation board for senior master sergeant (E-8) and chief master sergeant (E-9). DPSOE indicates that all eligible members for cycle 10E6 also received and/or had access to the Enlisted Promotion Fact Sheet which specifically states the member’s responsibilities and information about the DVR. DPSOE states the applicant’s 11 March 2011 request for supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 10E6 was denied by AFPC/DPSOE (Enlisted Promotions) on 21 March 2011 due to noncompliance with Air Force policy. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 June 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 an error or an 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2011-01357 in Executive Session on 8 December 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01357: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 May 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11. Chair 2 3