c 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01546 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The Request  for Decoration Printout  (RDP) date of his Air  Force 
Achievement Medal  (AFAM) be changed from 14 Aug  96 to 6 Mar 96. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Because of administrative erro'r, two packages with RDP's  prior to 
14 Aug  96 were lost.  The third DECOR-6 produced had a 14 Aug  96 
RDP.  All  previous  and  current  DECOR-6's  were  destroyed by  his 
unit's  Orderly Room and not available for submission. 

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal 
statement,  a  chronology  breakdown  of  events,  four  letters  of 
support, and other documentation relating to his appeal. 

Applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant's  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is 6 Jul 92.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air 
Force in the grade of staff sergeant, effective, and with  a date 
of rank  (DOR) of 1 May 98. 

Applicant's  Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) profile  since 1994 
follows : 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

5 Mar 94 
5 Mar 95 
1 Jan 96 
1 Jan 97 
2 Jan 98 

AFBCMR 97-0 1546 

Air  Force  officials  indicate  the  applicant’s  present  commander 
submitted  a  request  through  administrative  channels  to  the 
original  approval/disapproval authority requesting  the RDP  date 
be  changed  to  6 Mar  96. 
The  original  approval/disapproval 
authority disapproved the request. 

The applicant received the Air Force Achievement Medal  (AFAM) for 
meritorious  service  at  the  56th Equipment  Maintenance  Squadron, 
Luke AFB, Arizona, for the period 6 Mar  94 -  18 Mar  96, which is 
dated 25 Sep 96.  The DECOR-6 was dated 14 Aug 96. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Recognition  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPRA,  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated that  applicant  has  not  submitted  any 
documentation to show that the first two recommendation packages 
submitted by  the superintendent were  actually placed  in official 
channels  (signed by the recommending official and the next higher 
official in the chain of command).  Reconsideration is contingent 
on the presentation of credible evidence that the recommendation 
was officially placed in military channels or was submitted, but 
not  acted  on,  through  loss  or  inadvertence. 
There  is  no 
documentation to support the presumption that any recommendation 
package  was  officially placed  in military  channels  until  after 
14 Aug  96. 
DPPPRA  recommends  disapproval  of  the  applicant’s 
request. 

A complete copy of the Air  Force evaluation, with attachment, is 
attached at Exhibit C. 

The  Chief,  Inquiries/BCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  also  reviewed 
this  application  and  indicated  that  the  policies  regarding  the 
approval  of  a  decoration  and  the  credit  of  a  decoration  for 
promotion  purposes  are  two  separate  and  distinct  policies. 
Current  Air  Force  promotion  policy  (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  promotion  eligibility  cutoff  date 
(PECD) , and the date of the DECOR-6, must be before  the date of 
selections for the cycle in question.  Each promotion  cycle has 
an established  PECD which  is used  to determine in which AFSC  or 
Chief Enlisted Manager  (CEM) code the member will be considered, 
as well as which performance reports and decorations will be used 
in the promotion consideration.  The PECD for the promotion cycle 
in  question  was  31 Mar  96.  In  addition,  a  decoration  that  a 
member  claims  was  lost,  downgraded, etc.,  must  be  verified  and 
fully documented that it was placed into official channels prior 
to the selection date.  This also includes decorations that were 
disapproved initially but  subsequently resubmitted and approved. 
This decoration  does not meet  the criteria for promotion credit 
during  the  96E5 cycle because  the RDP  date  is  14 Aug  96, after 
selections  were  made  on  19 Jul  96  for  the  96E5  cycle.  This 

2 

AFBCMR 97-0 1546 

policy  was  initiated  on  28 Feb  79  specifically  to  preclude 
personnel  from  subsequently  (after  promotion  selections) 
submitting someone for a decoration with a retroactive decoration 
effective date  (close out) so as to put  them over the selection 
cutoff score.  Exceptions to the above policy are only considered 
when  the  airman  can  support  a  previous  submission  with 
documentation  or  statements  including  conclusive  evidence  that 
the  recommendation  was  officially  placed  in  military  channels 
within  the  prescribed  time  limit  and  conclusive  evidence  the 
recommendation was  not  acted  upon  through  loss or  inadvertence. 
In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2803, paragraph  3-1,  a  decoration  is 
considered  to  have  been  placed  in  official  channels  when  the 
decoration  recommendation  is  signed  by  the  initiating  official 
and  indorsed  by  a  higher  official  in  the  chain  of  command. 
Documentation  in  the  applicant’s  case  file  reflects  the 
decoration was not officially placed into military channels until 
after  selections  for  the  9635  cycle  were  accomplished. 
The 
orders are dated 25 Sep 96, with an RDP date of 14 Aug  96, which 
was  after  promotions  for  the  96E5  cycle  were  completed  (19 Jul 
96) and announced  (31 Jul 96).  To approve his request would not 
be  fair  or  equitable  to many  others  in  the  same  situation who 
also  miss  promotion  selection  by  a  narrow  margin  and  are  not 
permitted  to  have  an  “after  the  fact” decoration  count  in  the 
promotion process. 

DPPPWB also indicated that the applicant‘s total promotion score 
for  the  96E5  cycle  was  231.42  and  the  score  required  for 
selection  in  his  Control  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (CAFSC) was 
232.18.  He missed promotion selection by  .76 points.  An AFAM is 
worth 1 weighted promotion point.  This decoration would make him 
a  selectee  to  staff  sergeant  during  cycle  96E5,  pending  a 
favorable  data  verification  and  the  recommendation  of  his 
commander.  Promotions for this cycle were made on 19 Jul 96 and 
announced on 31 Jul 96.  He was  selected for promotion to staff 
sergeant  the  next  cycle,  97E5,  with  promotion  sequence  number 
7139. 

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached 
at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  provided  a 
three-page  response  indicating,  in  part,  that  he  is  concerned 
that  the  recommendations to  the Board  by  AFPC  are  not based  on 
the correct facts of his case  (see Exhibit F) . 

3 

AFBCMR 97-0 1546 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

the 

from 

his 

supporting 

statements 

3 .   Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  applicant's  complete  submission, 
former 
including 
superintendent  and  indorsed by  his  former  commander,  the  Board 
was  sufficiently  persuaded  that  the  flight  chief  had  not 
forwarded  the  original  DECOR-6  for  recommendation. 
The 
superintendent indicated that, had he not been on temporary duty 
(TDY), he  would  have  submitted the  applicant  for  a  decoration. 
It  appears  that  the  superintendent submitted  a  total  of  three 
packages of which two were lost.  Had the recommendation not been 
misplaced,  we  believe  the  RDP  would  have  been  requested  in 
sufficient  time  for  the  award  to  be  credited  for  promotion 
consideration  during  cycle  96E5.  We,  therefore,  conclude  that 
the  RDP  date  should  be  cha-nged as  indicated  below  and  the 
applicant  provided  supplemental  promotion  consideration  to  the 
grade of staff sergeant, with inclusion of the above cited AFAM. 
While we  note the applicant was  selected for promotion to  staff 
sergeant  for  cycle  97E5,  we  recommend  that  the  RDP  date  be 
changed  in  order  for  the  award  to  be  considered  by  the  96E5 
promotion  cycle. 
The  applicant  will  then  receive  fair  and 
equitable consideration based on an accurate record. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  RDP  for 
award  of  the  AFAM  for  the  period  6 Mar  94  to  18 Mar  96  was 
prepared on 6 Mar 96. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration  for promotion  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  for 
all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 96E5. 

If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to 
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and  apart,  and 
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would 
have  rendered  the  applicant  ineligible  for  the  promotion,  such 
information will be  documented and presented  to the Board  for a 
final  determination  on  the  individual's  qualification  for  the 
promotion. 

4 

AFBCMR 97-0 1546 

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection 
for  promotion  to  the  higher  grade,  immediately  after  such 
promotion  the  records  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was 
promoted to the higher grade effective and with a date of rank as 
established by the supplemental promotion and that he 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 8 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Ms. Charlene M.  Bradley, Panel Chair 
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

All  members  voted  to  correct the  records, as  recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Dec 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 6 Jan 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Jan 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit E .   Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Feb 98. 
Exhibit F.  Letter from applicant, dated 11 Mar 98, w/atchs. 

CHARLENE M.  B R A D L E Y ~  
Panel Chair 

5