4 

r 

JUL  2 7  tQ98 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03337 

allmmm 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

/

*

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
His Air Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM) ,  Second Oak Leaf Cluster 
(20LC), covering the period  28 May  85 -  1 Aug  86,  be  considered 
in  the  promotion  process  for  cycle  87B5  to  staff  sergeant 
(promotions effective Feb 87 -  Sep 87). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  decoration  was  originally  submitted  in  1986  but  was  lost 
before being  fully processed.  He is denied the promotion which 
would  have  been  his  if  the  original  award  had  been  properly 
handled. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided statements from 
his  former  supervisor,  first  sergeant,  and  commander,  and 
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 1 Sep 81.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air  .  - 
- 
Force in the grade of technical sergeant, effective, and with a 
date of rank  (DOR) of 1 Oct 96. 
Applicant's 
Performance Reports  (EPRs) since 1987 reflects the following: 

(APRs) /Enlisted 

Airman 

Performance 

Reports 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

31 Dec 87 
31 Dec 88 
28 Jan 90 
28 Jan 91 

9 
9 
4 (New rating system) 
4 

, 

AFBCMR 97-03337 

1 Nov 91 
1 Nov 92 
3 Oct 93 
20 Jun 94 
20 Jun 95 
27 Dec 95 
27 Dec 96 
1 Jun 97 

4 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 

c  u 

Documentation  provided  by  the  applicant  indicates  that  per 
message, dated Jan 87, his unit indicated there was no record of 
a decoration submitted on him. 

Per message, dated Aug  88, applicant's unit  indicated they were 
in  receipt  of  a  decoration  package  from  applicant's  first 
sergeant. 
The  first  sergeant  requested  that  the  decoration 
package be submitted for the applicant to cover the period 1 Jan 
86  through  31 Jul  86. 
However,  after  reviewing  the  request, 
several factors came into play.  Those factors were:  the unit 
indicated that the first sergeant was not in the chain of command 
in  accordance  with  indorsements  for Airman  Performance Reports 
(APRs) and the unit could not discern why the first sergeant was 
making a request for submission for a decoration instead of the 
then  rating  official or  the  then headquarters  squadron section 
commander.  The unit felt that the request would have been more 
justified  if  one  of  the  two  mentioned  individuals  would  have 
requested  it.  The  write-up,  if  submitted, was  more  than  two 
years old.  No one at  the unit could remember the applicant to 
validate whether an award was earned during his assignment to the 
unit. 
Therefore,  although  the  unit  sympathized  with  the 
applicant's  misfortune,  they  did  not  feel  that  they  could  any 
longer continue to make up  for mistakes supervisors made  in the 
past. 
Special Order -, 
dated 10 Jan 97,  reflects the applicant was 
awarded the AFCM for meritorious service for the period 28 May 85 
through 1 Aug 96. 
Special Order m, dated 10 Jan 97, pertaining to the award of 

the AFCM  to the applicant, as rank reads staff sergeant, it was 
amended to read sergeant and the inclusive dates were amended to 
read 28 May 85 through 1 Aug 86. 

On  30 Jul  97,  applicant's  request  to  have  the  decoration  in 
question included in the promotion process for cycle 87B5 as an 
exception to policy was disapproved by  the  Promotion Management 
Section at AFPC. 

2 

AFBCMR 97-03337 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Inquiries/BCMR 
n  and  indicat 

Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB, 
The  Assistant  Chief, 
d  that  the  applicant s 
reviewed  this  applicati 
total promotion score for the 87B5 cycle was 286.67 and the score 
required  for selection in his Control Air  Force  Speccalty Code 
(CAFSC) was 287.38.  If  the decoration is counted in his total 
score,  he  would  become  a  selectee  for  promotion  pending  a 
favorable data verification check and the recommendation of  his 
commander.  Promotions for this cycle were  announced on 20 Jan 
8 7 .  
DPPPWB further 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, 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  30 Sep  86.  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 
decoration in question does not meet  the criteria for promotion 
credit  during  the  87B5  cycle  because  there  is  no  tangible 
evidence  the  resubmitted  decoration  was  placed  into  official 
channels prior  to  the  date  selections  for the  87B5  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 
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. 

While  documentation  included  in  the  applicant's  case  file 
reflects a recommendation package for the subject AFCM  may have 
been initiated, the fact is, there is no evidence the decoration 

3 

- 
. -  
- 

AFBCMR 97-03337 

was  placed  in  official  channels  until  eight  years  after 
promotions  for  the  87B5  cycle  were  released.  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. 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is 
attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and provided  a 
two-page  rebuttal,  with  attachments,  which  is  attached  at 
Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s 
submission, we are not persuaded that the AFCM in question should 
be  considered  in  the  promotion  process  for  cycle  87B5. 
His 
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these 
assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We therefore 
agree  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the 
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered 
either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore,  we  find  no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

- 

 

. -

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 

4 

appearance; and  that  the  application will  only be  reconsidered 
upon  the  submission of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence not 
considered with this application. 

AFBCMR 97-03337 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 23  June 1998,  under  the provisions sf  Air 
Force Instruction 36-2603: 

Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 
Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149,  dated 21 Oct 97,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Nov 97,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24  Nov 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 16 Dec 97,  w/atchs. 

WAYNE R. GRACIE 
Panel Chair 

5 

. . . ... . . , 

~ 

. 

~ 

. . . . . .  

, 

1 .\...,....... 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE AIR FORCE 

HEAWUARTER$ AIR M R C E  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

1 3  t4ov  a97 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  AFPC/DPPPwB 

550 C Street West,  Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-471 1 

U.S.  AIR FORCE B 

1 9 4 7  - I 9 9 7  

-

u

 

SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military 
Requested Action  The applicant is requesting his Ah Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), 
20LC, covering the period 5 May 85 - 8 Jan 86 be considered in the promotion process for cycle 
87B5 to staff sergeant (promotions effective Feb 87 - Sep 87) due to amy over promotions for 
this cycle. 

...- 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes his decoration covering the period indicated above 

should be considered in the promotion process for cycle 87B5 based on the circumsbnces which 
caused the delay in the a

d

 of the decoration. 

- Facts. The applicant's total promotion score for the 87B5 cycle was 286.67, and the score 
required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 287.38. If the 
decoration is counted in the applicant's total score, he would become a selectee for promotion 
pending a fhvorable data verification check and the recommendation of his commander. 
Promotions for this cycle were announced 20 Jan 87. 

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 
(MI 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 
reports and decorations will be used in the promotion consideration.  The PECD for 
@orm&ce 
the promotion cycle in question was 30 Sep 86. 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 87B5 cycle 

because there is no tangible evidence the resubmitted decoration was placed into official 

- - 
- 

7 7 6 3 3 3 - 7  

channels prior to the date selections for the 87B5 cycle were made.  This policy was initiated 28 
Feb 79 specifically to preclude personnel fiom 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 l i t  and conclusive evidence the recommendation was not acted uponu 
through loss or inadvertence.  IAW AFI 36-2803, par 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. 

. 

c.  W

e

 documentation included in the applicant’s case file reflects a recommendation 

package for the subject AFCM may have been initiated, the fact is the=  is no evidence the 
decoration was placed in official channels until 8 years after promotions for the 87B5 cycle were 
released.  While we ~ I V  acutely aware of the impact this recommendation has on the applicant’s 
career, there is no tangible evidence the decoration was placed into official channels before 
selections for the 87B5 cycle were made as we previously indicated. To approve the applicant’s 
request would not be fair or equitable to many others in the same sithtion 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.  We concur with this action. 

-. 

Recommendation. Denial based on the rationale provided. 

A L 2 u . M  
DONALD B. SLATE 
Ass’t Chief, InquiriesBCMR Section 
Airman Promotion Branch 

Attachments: 
Extract Cy, AFI 36-2502 

so 

c' 

4 

$ 7 0  3  ?37