RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01617 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The digital signature dates on his Air Medal second and third Oak Leaf Clusters (AM w/2 OLCs and AM w/3 OLCs) be changed so the decorations can be used in the promotion process for cycle 13E6. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Both the USCENTAF Form 1, Air Medal (AM) and Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) Mission Information – Justification Sheet, and AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration, Deployment/Contingency Operation, for the AM w/2 OLCs and AM w/3 OLCs reflect the dates of the resubmissions and not the original submittal dates of 21 Apr 12 and 18 May 12, respectively. The 651st Air Expeditionary Group (651 AEG) at Camp Bastion lost the two AMs and misfiled an AAM. This was confirmed upon contact with the Personnel Support for Contingency Operations (PERSCO) office who advised the error was the result of the deletion and/or corruption of the shared drive. Additionally, the AM w/1 OLC should actually be the AM w/2 OLCs based on the dates of the combat missions. These decorations resulted in a loss of 9 points towards the Calendar Year (CY) 2013 Technical Sergeant (TSgt) Promotion Cycle which would have put him over the cutoff. He requested supplemental promotion consideration but the original records were digital and lost forever. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Jun 04 and is currently serving on active duty in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID was unable to verify an error or injustice exists in regard to the Report of Decoration Printout digital signature date on the applicant’s AM w/2 OLCs or AM w/3 OLCs nor were they able to verify an error or injustice with the AM w/1 OLCs. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations, a recommendation is placed in official channels when the recommending official signs the recommendation (Decor 6 and justification) and a higher official in the nominee’s chain of command endorses it. DPSID contacted USAF Central Command (USAFCENT) on 12 May 14 and was advised the digital signature date on the AF IMT 3994 is the date used for the Report of Decoration Printout on the AM certificates. The date the AF IMT 3994 is filled out and the digital signature date should match as the recommendation is normally officially endorsed (digitally signed) the date the form is completed. The AF IMT 3994 for the AM w/2 OLCs for the inclusive period of 24 Mar 12 to 21 Apr 12 was received by the approval authority on 8 Oct 13 and contains a digital signature date by the recommending official of 21 Apr 12. It is highly improbable the applicant would have been submitted for a decoration the exact day of the close out date of the award. As evidenced by the Report of Decoration printout on the applicant’s AM (basic) and AM w/1 OLC, the recommendation process is normally initiated approximately a month after the act/achievement occurred. The AF IMT 3994 for the AM w/3 OLCs for the inclusive period of 5 May 12 to 18 May 12 was received by the approval authority on 8 Oct 13 and contains a digital signature date of 20 Aug 13. The recommending official dated the AF IMT on 18 May 12 instead of the current date, again, possibly to help support the recommendation as previously being submitted but was lost/deleted. The close out date of the award of 18 May 12 is the same date placed on the AF IMT 3994. Again, it is highly improbable that the applicant’s chain of command would have submitted the applicant for a decoration the exact day of the close out of award. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s requests to include the decorations in the promotion process for cycle 13E6 as the decorations were not submitted until after selections were made for the promotion cycle. To approve the applicant’s 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 was considered and non-selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt for Cycle 13E6. The score required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 347.05 and his total weighted promotion score was 339.91. If the two AM’s, worth 3 points each, were counted in his total score, he would become a selectee for promotion. Current Air Force promotion policy, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, 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 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the Decor 6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle. The PECD for Cycle 13E6 was 31 Dec 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. Promotion selections for this cycle were made on 16 Jul 13 with a public release date of 1 Aug 13. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary we find no basis to grant the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-01617 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Jun 14. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE dated 29 Jul 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 14.