RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05120 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) received for the period of 15 Apr 11 to 30 Dec 11 be included for promotion consideration to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) for Cycle 12E6 [sic]. 2. He receives supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of TSgt for Cycle 12E6 [sic]. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He missed promotion to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) for Cycle 12E5 by 0.3 points. He learned he was submitted for an AFAM for the period of 24 Nov 08 thru 29 Mar 12 which was before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for Cycle 12E5. The decoration was submitted to the Military Personnel Section (MPS) on 29 Jun 12 and he was advised to request supplemental promotion consideration. AFPC denied his request for supplemental promotion consideration because the unit waited 6 months to request a Recommendation for Decoration Printout (DECOR 6) and he did not have any documentation to show he tried to correct the issue before selections were made. He was unaware he was submitted for a decoration so he could not have tried to expedite the decoration. The DECOR 6 was dated one day prior to the promotion release. He has since spoken to the group commander and the Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt, E-9) who wrote the decoration and both have said they had every intention of the decoration being turned in sooner and for it to be considered for Cycle 12E5. In support of his requests, the applicant provides a letter from his commander, AFAM certificate, supplemental promotion request and DECOR 6. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is on active duty in the grade of SSgt with a Date of Rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 Jan 14. According to an e-mail dated 22 Oct 13 from the Force Support Squadron to the applicant, AFPC/DPSOE disapproved his request for supplemental promotion consideration for Cycle 12E5. The specific reason for the disapproval is per AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 2.8.3.1., a decoration must have a closeout date on or before the PECD and the commander’s recommendation date on the DECOR 6 must be before the date AFPC makes the selections for promotion. There was also no signature or date on the DECOR 6. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have his AFAM for the period of 24 Nov 08 to 29 Mar 12 be used in the promotion process for Cycle 12E5. He has not provided conclusive evidence that it was approved and placed into official channels prior to 16 Jul 12 (the date selections were made). In support of his request, he provided a blank DECOR 6 that was printed on 4 Apr 13 (almost 9 months after selections were run). This DECOR 6 does not indicate the type of decoration being submitted, its inclusive dates, the reason for the decoration and it was not signed by anyone. The applicant was considered and non-selected for promotion to the grade of SSgt during Cycle 12E5. His total weighted promotion score was 267.50 and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 267.83. If the decoration worth 1 point is counted in the total score, he would become a select for promotion pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of his commander. Promotion selections for this cycle were made on 16 Jul 12 with a public release date of 2 Aug 12. AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2. Rule 5, Note 2, dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD and the date of the DECOR 6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. The PECD for this cycle was 31 Mar 12. In addition, a decoration that a member claims was lost or downgraded must be fully documented and verified that it was placed into official channels prior to the selection date (16 Jul 12). This policy was implemented on 28 Feb 79 specifically to preclude personnel from subsequently (after promotion selections) submitting someone for a decoration with a retroactive decoration effective date so as to put them over the selection cutoff score. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was unaware a decoration was being written for him and was therefore unable to inquire about the status prior to selections being made for Cycle 12E5. The close out date of his AFAM is 29 Mar 12 which is prior to the PECD of 30 Mar 12 and the Décor 6 was printed on 4 Apr 13. He missed promotion by 0.3 points and discovered that a decoration was written that should have been in his records months earlier, if it had been in his records he would have been promoted. The commander and superintendent have stated that they started the decoration in December and their intent was for it to be finished and submitted for inclusion in his record prior to selections for Cycle 12E5 on 16 Jul 12. The Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) states he did not provide a completed and signed DECOR 6 with his package. He notes members are not typically involved in the routing process for a decoration and like him are unaware one is being written until they are awarded it. He repeatedly requested a copy of all completed and signed paper work but never received it. He also requested a copy of the completed DECOR 6 from the MPS but they lost the signed copy so his only option was to provide a blank version. The inability of supervisors to complete his paperwork in a timely manner caused a serious injustice in preventing him from being promoted and he should not be penalized for something he had no control over and zero knowledge of. He requests the Board consider the statements made by those who wrote the decoration. The complete applicant’s response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that the AFAM should be included for promotion consideration to the grade of SSgt. While the applicant’s contentions and the statements provided by his squadron commander and superintendent are noted; he has not provided persuasive evidence to override the rationale provided by the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR). Further, changing the applicant’s records in the manner requested would provide him a promotion opportunity not afforded to others similarly situated. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant 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-2013-05120 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following pertinent documentary was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Jan 14. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Mar 14. 1 2