RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04004 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for promotion cycle 12E6. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) for the period 15 April 2011 to 30 December 2011 should be considered for supplemental promotion consideration. It was the intent of the approval authority for her AFAM to be a matter of record before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) for the promotion cycle 12E6. She performed a data verification review prior to testing and everything was accurate. However, she later discovered that she had been recommended for an AFAM which was not included for promotion consideration. As a result, she missed promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) by one point during the promotion cycle 12E6. The 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). On 20 June 2012, a Recommendation For Decoration Print-out (RDP), was requested on behalf of the applicant. On 21 June 2012, the promotion selections to technical sergeant (E-6) were released. The applicant was considered and non- selected for promotion to E-6 during promotion cycle 12E6. She received a total weighted promotion score of 319.16 points and the score required for selection in her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 320.16. On 29 June 2012, the applicant was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal for the period 15 April 2011 to 30 December 2011, which was not considered during the promotion cycle. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating the applicant has provided no supporting documentation or conclusive evidence that the decoration was in official channels prior to selections and release for promotion cycle 12E6. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, before a decoration is credited for a specific 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. In addition, in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decoration Program, a decoration is considered to have been placed into official channels when the RDP is signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command. In this case, the PECD was 31 December 2011, the selection date for promotion was 5 June 2012, and the RDP was prepared on 20 June 2012. The RDP provided by the applicant had not been completed/signed and was not prepared until 20 June 2012. As such, it could not have been approved and placed into official channels prior to cycle 12E6 and cannot be credited during the cycle 12E6. The applicant’s request to have the decoration included in the supplemental promotion process for cycle 12E6 was disapproved by AFPC/DPSOE, Enlisted Promotions Management Section, at the Air Force Personnel Center on 31 July 2012. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant fully understands the policy that governs decorations; however, she feels it is an injustice to prevent her the opportunity for promotion because of a processing delay of the RDP. She reiterates that it was the approving authority’s intent for the decoration to be finalized prior to the close-out date for cycle 12E6. She does not believe she should be penalized for something that she has no control over. The applicant’s complete submission is 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant contends that processing delays resulted in her recommendation for award of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) not being placed into official channels in time to be credited during the contested promotion cycle. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPSOE indicating the decoration should not be credited as it was not placed in official channels prior to selects being run, we believe it to be in the interest of justice to grant the requested relief. In this respect, we note the applicant has provided statements from her chain of command attesting to the fact the recommendation for decoration was initiated well prior to the selects for the promotion cycle being run; however, its submission into official channels was inadvertently delayed due to mission requirements which limited their availability during the matter under review. We also note that once the decoration was processed, it was approved within 10 days of the date the RDP was prepared. In view of this and given the unequivocal support provided by the applicant’s chain of command, and having no reason to question their integrity in this matter, we recommend the applicant’s 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 the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the recommendation for decoration print-out for the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), was prepared on 4 June 2012 and was placed into official channels. It is further recommended that she be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for promotion cycle 12E6. If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issue involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for this promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual’s qualifications for the promotion. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04004 in Executive Session on 23 April 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 August 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 October 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 November 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 November 2012