JUL  1 4  1998 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03162 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

, 

F 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The Air Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM), First Oak Leaf Cluster 
(1OLC) ,  covering the period 8 Feb 93 -  23 Dec  96, be  considered 
in  the  promotion process  for  cycle  9736  to  technical  sergeant 
(E-6) (promotions effective Aug 97 -  Jul 98). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

.. - 

The AFCM  closed  out  with  an  improper  close  out  date.  It  was 
corrected after selections were made  for promotion to technical 
sergeant.  However, an attempt was made prior to selections, with 
negative  results.  Hence, her  decoration was  not  included  for 
consideration for promotion to technical sergeant. 
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is 22 Jun 87.  She is currently serving in the Regular 
Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant, effective, and with a 
date of rank  (DOR) of 1 Apr 95. 
Documentation provided by  the applicant  reflects that  on 19 Jun 
97, the commander requested the AFCM, loLC, covering the period 
8 Feb  93 -  8 Jan  97, be  amended  to  8 Feb  93 -  23 Dec  96.  B y  
Special Order GA-112, dated 16 Jul  9 7 ,   as pertains to the award 
of the AFCM to the applicant, with inclusive dates of 8 Feb 93 - 
8 Jan 97, was  amended t o   read  8 Feb  93 -  23 Dec 96.  On  10 Oct 
97, officials at  AFPC  disapproved  the  request  for  supplemental 
promotion  consideration  for  cycle  9736  to  add  the  AFCM,  loLC, 
with  a close-out date of  8 Jan 97, amended  to  23 Dec  96.  AFPC 
indicated  that,  to  allow  the  decoration  to  be  considered  for 

AFBCMR 97-03 162 

cycle  9736  because  the  original  date  was  changed  from  a  date 
after the 31 Dec 96 promotion eligibility cutoff date  (PECD) to a 
date prior to  the PECD would not be  fair or equitable to other 
airmen who were not allowed to have the close out date of  their 
decorations  changed  for  promotion  consideration.  It  was  also 
noted that by  the unit commander's  memorandum, dated  19 Jun 97, 
the close out date was not  changed until  after selections were 
announced indicating the applicant missed promotion by less than 
one point. 

The  Air  Force  indicated  that  the  applicant's  total  promotion 
score for the  9736 cycle was  355.74 and  the  score required for 
selection in her  Control  Air  Force  specialty  code  (CAFSC) was 
356.64.  If  the decoration is counted in the  applicant's  total 
score,  she  would  become  a  selectee  for  promotion  pending  a 
favorable data verification check and the recommendation of her 
commander.  Promotions for this cycle were made on 19 May 97 and 
announced on 5 Jun 97. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Inquiries/BCMR  Section, AFPC/DPPPWB,  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  policiks. 
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,  Request  for  Decoration 
Printout  (RDP), 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 Dec 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. 

The  applicant's  decoration  does  not  meet  the  criteria  for 
promotion credit during the 9736 cycle because the close out date 
of the decoration was not changed until after selections for the 
9736 cycle were  made.  This 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  action  was  taken  to  correct  the  close  out  date 

2 

before  selections  were  done  and  it  was  known  the  additional 
decorations points would make the member a selectee. 

AFBCMR 97-03 162 

(1) point. 

DPPPWB  further  states  that,  after  an  extensive  review  of  the 
circumstances of  the applicant's  case, to include documentation 
she has provided, there is no conclusive evidence the close out 
date of the decoration was corrected until after selections for 
the 9736  cycle were announced and the applicant became aware she 
While DPPPWB I s  
had missed promotion by less than one 
acutely  aware  of  the  impact  this  recommendation  has  on  the 
applicant's  career,  the  fact  is  the  close  out  date  of  the 
decoration was not made until after selections for the 9736 cycle 
were announced.  To approve the applicant's  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.  The applicant's  request to have the decoration included 
in the promotion process for this cycle as an exception to policy 
was disapproved by  the Promotion Management  Section at AFPC and 
DPPPWB  concurs  with  this  action. 
Based  on  the  rationale 
provided, they recommend denial of this request. 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, 
attached at Exhibit C. 

is 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
10 Nov 97 for review and response.  As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

The application was timely filed. 

2 .  
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Applicant's  contentions are duly noted; however, we  do not  find 
these assertions, in and by  themselves, sufficiently persuasive 
We 
to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force. 
therefore  agree  with  the  recommendation of  the  Air  Force  and 
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis f o r   our decision that 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  her  burden  that  she  has 
suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of  the above 
and  absent  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

3 

MBCMR 97-03 162 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 11 June  1 9 9 8 ,   under  the provisions of Air 
Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 1 4 9 ,   dated 1 9   Sep 97,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 9   Oct 97,  w/atch:- 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Nov 97. 

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

4 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

2 9   OCT  1997 

U.S.  AIR FORCE B 

1 9 4 7  - lQ97 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  AFPClDPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 1 1 

SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting her Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCW, 

loLC,  covering the period 8 Feb 93 - 23 Dec 96 be considered in the promotion process for 
cycle 97% to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul98). 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes her decoration covering the period indicated above 
should be considered in the promotion process for cycle 97J36 based on the circumstances which 
caused the close out date to be changed. 

- Facts. The applicant's total promotion score for the 97E6  cycle was 355.74,  and the score 
required for selection in her Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 356.64. If the 
decoration is counted in the applicant's total score, she would become a selectee for promotion 
pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of her commander. 
Promotions for this cycle were made on 19 May 97 and aunounced 5 Jun 97. 

Discussion. 

a.  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, Request for Decoration Printout 
(RDP), 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 Air Force Specialty Code (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 considiration. The PECD for 
the promotion cycle in question was 3 1 Dec 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. 

b.  This decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 97E6 cycle 
because the close out date of the decoration was not changed until after selections for the 9 x 6  
cycle were made.  This policy was initiated 28 Feb 79 specifically to preclude personnel h m  

. . . .  . 

subsequently (&a 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 ainnan can support a previous submission with 
documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that action was taken to correct the 
close out date before selections were done and it was known the additional decoration points 
would make the member a selectee. 

c.  After an extensive review of the circumstances of this w e  to include documentation 
the applicant has provided, there is no conclusive evidence the close out date of the decoration 
was corrected until after selections for the 97E6 cycle were announced and the applicant became 
aware 
she had missed promotion by less than 1 point.  While we are acutely aware of the impact this 
recommendation has on the applicant's career, the fact is the close out date of the decoration was 
not made until after selections for the 97B6 cycle were announced.  To approve the applicant's 
 others in the same situation who also miss 
request would not be fair or equitable to m
promotion selection by a narrow mar&  and are not permitted to have an "after the fact" 
decoration count in the. promotion process.  The applicant's request to have the decoration 
included in the promotion process for this cycle as an exception to policy was disapproved by the 
Promotion Management Section at AFPC. We concur with this action. 

y

Recommendation. Denial based on the rationale provided. 

Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion Branch 

. 

' 

Attachments: 
Extract Cy, MI 36-2502 

cc: 
SAF/MIBR