RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04535 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The seven Air Medals she received be considered for the 12E6 promotion cycle. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her original Air Medals were lost in Calendar Year (CY) 2006. Therefore, subsequent Air Medal submissions could not be processed. In early 2011, she resubmitted all seven Air Medals. However, the wing had to process missing medals for approximately 30 other members, which caused a backlog. Consequently the commander, 461st Air Control Wing (461 ACW/CC) was unable to review and publish her exception to policy letter until May 2013. In CY 2013, the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) accepted her supplemental promotion package for cycle 13E6; however, AFPC denied her supplemental promotion consideration request for cycle 12E6, stating that documentation was not submitted before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD). Contrarily, the records reflect that the process began two years before the PECD. Although they were submitted on time, her decoration points were not a matter of record. Through no fault of her own, an error caused by the owning unit cost her a promotion to the grade of TSgt for cycle 12E6. In support of her request, the applicant submits letters from her squadron, group and wing commanders stating that through no fault of her own, the Air Medals were never processed by her squadron between CY 2006-2010. The wing commander stated that the applicant should not be penalized for procedural errors within the wing. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 July 2001, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and is currently serving in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E- 6). According to the applicant’s AF IMTs 3994, Recommendation for Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations, dated 5 August 2012, she was submitted for seven Air Medals, (Oak Leaf Clusters [OLCs] 2 - 8) for the following periods: 2nd OLC -7 February 2005 to 9 April 2005 3rd OLC -12 April 2005 to 5 December 2006 4th OLC -7 December 2006 to 22 May 2008 5th OLC -24 May 2008 to 24 September 2009 6th OLC -26 September 2009 to 20 June 2010 7th OLC -22 June 2010 to 25 August 2011 8th OLC -28 August 2011 to 27 October 2011 According to the applicant’s Weighted Airman Promotion System Score Notice for promotion cycle 12E6 dated 15 July 2013, he was nonselected for promotion to the grade of TSgt by a margin of 5.34 points. The Air Medal is awarded to U.S. military and civilian personnel for single acts of heroism or meritorious achievements while participating in aerial flight and foreign military personnel in actual combat in support of operations. Required achievement is less than that required for the Distinguished Flying Cross, but must be accomplished with distinction above and beyond that expected of professional airmen. According to data extracted from the Military Personnel Data System, the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 2013. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has been considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of TSgt five times (cycles 08E6 - 12E6). She missed promotion for cycle 12E6 by 5.34 points. If the decorations (worth three points each) were counted in the applicant's total score for all applicable cycles, she would become a selectee for promotion for cycle 12E6, pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of her commander. Promotion selections for this cycle were made on 6 June 2012, with a public release date of 21 June 2012. The policies regarding the approval of a decoration and the credit of a decoration for promotion purposes are two separate and distinct policies. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, 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, Request for Decoration Printout, must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. The PECD for cycle 12E6 was 31 December 2011. In addition, a decoration that a member claims was lost, downgraded, etc., must be fully documented and verified that it was placed into official channels prior to the selection date. In accordance with AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, a decoration is considered to have been placed into official channels when the Decor-6 (or in this case, the AF IMT 3994) is signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command. The AF IMTs 3994 for Air Medals 20LC-80LC were signed on 5 August 2012 (after the selections for promotion to the grade of TSgt was publicly released). AFI 36-2502 also states that airmen should obtain and review their Data Verification Rips (DVR) along with score notices on the virtual Military Personnel Flight website, review their electronic record in ARMS to ensure data is correct, and notify the appropriate Military Personnel Section work center or agency for correction of any errors. Had the applicant verified her record prior to promotion cycles as she is instructed/required to do, she would have discovered missing decorations beginning with cycle 08E6. The applicant states that she did not discover, inquire and/or resubmit her decorations for processing until December 2011; however, since Air Medals are missioned based and five of the seven awards should have been in her record for cycles 08E6 - 11E6, she should have inquired as to their whereabouts well before that time. While DPSOE is acutely aware of the impact this recommendation has on the applicant's career, the fact is the decoration was not submitted until after selections were made, as previously indicated. 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's request to have decorations included in the promotion process for cycle 12E6 as an exception to policy was disapproved by DPSOE - the OPR for enlisted promotions. As a matter of information, the applicant was supplementally considered and selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt during cycle 13E6. A complete copy of the DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 January 2015, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We note that DPSOE recommends denial stating the Air Medals were not placed in official channels prior to the PECD. However, based on the evidence presented we believe that relief is warranted. In this respect, we note the applicant has provided statements from her chain of command attesting to the fact that the recommendations for the Air Medals were initiated well before the selects for the promotion cycle being run. However, through no fault of the applicant the Air Medals were inadvertently delayed due to procedural errors within the Wing. Given the unequivocal support provided by the applicant’s chain of command coupled with the fact the applicant received seven Air Medals for meritorious achievement while participating in sustained aerial flights prior to the PECD, we find the evidence presented sufficient to grant the requested relief. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as set forth below. 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 RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF IMTs 3994, Recommendation for Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations for seven Air Medals (2 - 8 Oak Leaf Clusters) was signed on 1 December 2011, 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. If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to any higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that she was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 7 July 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the record as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2014-04535 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 October 2013 [sic], w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 December 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 January 2015.