DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

- 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03 138 

JUL  1 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 

of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

ecords of the Department of the Air Force relating 
include the Aerial Achievement Medal for the peri 
e considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special 

Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1997C Central Major Selection Board. 

" 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

t 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  1 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03138 

COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
His record, to include the Aerial Achievement Medal  (AAM)  for the 
period  3  June  1993 through 5 September 1995, be  considered for 
promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board  (SSB) 
for  the  Calendar  Year  1997C  (CY97C) Central  Major  Selection 
Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The Aerial Achievement Medal decoration was processed too late by 
his previous unit and was not in his records to be considered by 
the CY97C selection board. 

In support of  the  appeal, applicant  submits a mission  tracking 
log, e-mail, officer selection brief, and AAM  Special Order and 
documentation. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of captain. 

Applicant  was  considered and  not  selected for promotion  to the 
grade of major by the CY97C Selection Board. 

Applicant was awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal for the period 
3  June  1993  through  5  September  1995  by  Special  Order 
dated 19 September 1997.  By regulation this decoration was not 
required to be in his officer selection record  (OSR) when it met 
the CY97C board. 

97- 03138 

OPR profile since 1992, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

15 May 92 
02 Sep 93 
09 Jan 95 
01 Oct 95 
01 Oct 96 
12 Jun 97 

# 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

#  Top report at time of CY97C board. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the 
application and states that  the applicant's contention that  the 
AAM  should have been considered by the CY97C board held  16 June 
1997 is unfounded.  By regulation, a decoration is required to be 
placed  into official channels within two years from the year of 
the  service which  it  is  recognizing, and  awarded within  three 
years.  Once the special order is accomplished, a decoration is 
to be placed in the OSR within 60 days.  Until a special order is 
cut, a  decoration does  not  exist.  The  applicant's period  of 
service for the AAM  ended on 5 September 1995.  His decoration 
was required to be completed and awarded by September 1998.  The 
special order is dated 19 September 1997, well within regulatory 
requirements.  However, the  decoration did  not  exist  when  the 
CY97C board convened 16 June 1997.  While the applicant contends 
he  faxed the Decor 6 during the summer of  1996, they note it is 
dated 15 February 1997.  How could the applicant fax a computer 
product  that had not yet been extracted from the personnel data 
system (PDS)?  The applicant provided no evidence, other than his 
personal  recollection  of  events  during  the  period,  to 
substantiate  the  award  was  delayed. 
It  appears  the  first 
correspondence between  the approval authority and  the applicant 
occurred in August 1997, some two months after the board was held 
in  June  1997. 
After  reviewing  those  e-mail  excerpts,  they 
conclude the approval authority did everything in their power to 
expedite  the  award  and  subsequently accomplished  it  in  direct 
accordance with applicable regulations.  They strongly recommend 
denying the applicant's request to include the AAM  in his record 
for  the  CY97C  board. 
It  would  be  unfair  to  other  officers 
nonselected  by  the  CY97C  board,  who  also  had  decorations  not 
included  in  their  OSRs  due  to  a  special  order  being  written 
shortly before  or  after  the  board,  to  include  the  AAM  in  the 
applicant's SSB consideration.  They strongly recommend denying 
the applicant's request for SSB consideration on this issue. 

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

2 

97-03 13 8 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and states that 
he  apparently  left  an  impression  that  the  AFBCMR  needs  more 
corroboration which he  is happy  to provide.  Therefore, he  has 
attached a letter from the squadron commander during the  "delay" 
period of 1995  -  1997, the individual whom he  feels is the most 
credible and knowledgeable overall authority on this matter. 

In  addition,  applicant  submits  a  statement  from 
commander  stating  when  he  assumed  command  of  the 
Squadron  (AS) at  Ramstein  AB  in  August  1995,  th 
literally  facing  a  backlog  of  two years worth  of  aeronautical 
decorations.  The  decoration processes  at  Ramstein  -  base/wing 
personnel  channels  as  well  as  USAFE  -  were  often  quite  an 
obstacle. 
took  time  to  bring  about  institutional  changes 
within the 
AS and help repair these broken processes outside 
the squadron.  They were forced to submit flying decorations only 
in bulk  -  often making their own people wait great lengths to be 
one 
formally recognized for such achievements.  The applicant was 
of  those  affected  despite  his  commendable  efforts  through 
all 
channels. 

-

-

 

Applicant's complete  response, with  attachment,  is  attached 
Exhibit E. 

at 

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 probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  note  the  applicant's 
diligent attempts to have the award placed in his record prior to 
the convening of the board.  We also note the statement provided 
by the squadron commander stating that when he assumed command of 
the  37th Airlift  Squadron  in August  1995, there was  a  two-year 
backlog of aeronautical decorations and that they were forced to 
submit flying decorations only in bulk  -  often making their own 
people  wait  great  lengths  to  be  formally  recognized  for  such 
achievements.  While  the  delay  was  not  in  violation  of  the 
applicable regulation, we  believe  that  had  it not been  for the 
two-year backlog of awards the squadron had to deal with, the AAM 
would have been awarded sooner and placed in his record prior to 
the  convening  of  the  CY97C  selection  board. 
In view  of  the 

3 

97- 03 138 

foregoing  and  in  an  effort  to  remove  any  possibility  of  an 
injustice  to  the  applicant, we  recommend  that  his  record,  to 
include the AAM  for the period  3  June  1993  through 5 September 
1995,  be  considered  for promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  a 
Special Selection Board for the CY97C Selection Board. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to APPLICANT, to  include  the Aerial  Achievement Medal 
for  the  period  3  June  1993  through  5  September  1995,  be 
considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  Special 
Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Year  1997C  Central  Major 
Selection Board. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 14 May 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36- 
2603 : 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote) 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated42 Nov 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Nov 97. 
Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 31 Jan 98, w/atch. 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

4 

4 

DEPARTMENT OFTHE A[R FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

1 2 

1951 

1 9 4 7 -  1 9 9 7  

FIROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
RandolphAFB Tx 78150-4710 

Requested Action. Applicant requests special selection board (SSB) consideration for the 
CY97C (16 Jun 97) (P0497C) central major selection board with the Aerial Achievement Medal 
(AAM), inclusive period 3 Jun 93 - 5 Sep 95, included in his officer selection record (OSR). 
Basis for’Reauest. Applicant contends the AAM should have been considered by the 

P0497C promotion board. 

Recommendation.  Deny, 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  Application is timely.  Application under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Oflcicer and 
Enlisted Evaluation Reports, would not be appropriate in this instance. Applicant has one 
nomeledon for promotion to. the grade of mjor by the P0497C central major promotion board. 

b. AFI 36-2803, The Awards and Decorations Program,  15 Aug 94 i s  the 

governing directive. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal briec excerpts &om 
mission tracking log, e-mail correspondence between the applicant and unit award%  the 
decoration dated between 4 Aug 97 and 12 Sep 97, copy of Officer Selection Brief (OSB), copy 
of orders, citation, Decor 6, and AAM. 

d.  The applicant’s contention the AAM should have been considered by the 

P0497C board held 16 Jun 97 is unfounded. By regulation, a dewmtion is required to be placed 
into official channels *thin  two years &om the end of the service which it is recognizing, and 
awarded within three years.  Once the special order is accomptished, a decoration is to be placed 
in the OSR within 60 days (MI 36-2803, Fig 3-1, Note 4).  Until a special order is cut, a 
The applicant’s period of service for the AAM ended on 5 Sep 95. 
decoration &-. 
His decoration was required to be completed and awarded by Sep 1998. It was special ordered 
19 Sep 97, well witbin regulatory requirements.  However, the decoration did not exist when the 
P0497C board convened 16 Jun 97. While the applicant contends he faxed the Decor 6 during 

the summer of 1996, we note it is dated 15 Feb 97.  How could the applicant fbx a computer 
product that had not yet been extr8~ted fiom the personnel data system (PDS)?  The applicant 
provided no evidence, other than his personal recollection of events during the period, to 
substantiate the award was delayed.  It appears the first correspondence between the approval 
authority and the applicant occuiked in Aug 97, some two months after the board was held in Jun 
97,  After reviewing those e-mail excerpts, we conclude the approval authority did everything in 
their power to expedite the award and subsequently accomplished it in direct accordance with 
applicable regdations.  We $ronnly  recommend denying the applicant’s request to include the 
AAM in his record for the P0497C board. It would be unfair to other officers nonselected by the 
P0497C board, who also had decorations not included in their OSRs due to a special order being 
written shortly before or afterthe board, to include the AAM in the applicant’s SSB 
consideration, 

r 

e. Each eligible officer considered by the P0497C board received detailed 

instructions for review of their preselection briefs and associated records.  The instructions clearly 
state “Officers are responsible for reviewing their PRF, OPRS and data on their preselection brief 
for accuracy prior to the board date, addressing all concerns and discrepancies through their 
servicing Military Personnel Flight WF), and ifnecessary, their chain of command and senior 
rater.  Officers will not be considered by SSB if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer 
should have discovered m error or omission in hisher records and could have taken timely 
corrective action.’’ It was his responsibility to not@ the board of the omission of the AAM. by 
letter if he believed it important to his promotion consideration.  However, we do not find any 
record the applicant wrote such a letter to the board president.  We strongly recommend denying 
the applicant’s request for SSB consideration on this issue 

Summary. Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial 

n 

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt