RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03417

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    Special Order        , dated 28 Jun 97, be  amended  to  reflect
the Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) be changed from 9 Jun 97  to
22 Jun 96.

2.      His   corrected   record   receive   supplemental    promotion
consideration to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for cycle 97E7.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He missed promotion to master sergeant by 2.75 points and he needs the
three points for award of the Air  Force  Commendation  Medal  (AFCM),
Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (4OLC), for the period 15 Mar 92 through 6 Jul
95.  Before he tested for promotion, he was already inquiring  on  his
last decoration medal from his last duty station.  His supervisor  and
chief indicated that the  AFCM,  4OLC,  was  submitted  or  they  were
working on it.  After  further  research,  his  decoration  was  never
submitted to the proper channel.  He is asking the  Board  to  correct
the injustice that was done on his last duty station.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided statements  from  his
former  supervisors,  a  copy  of  Special  Order  G-    ,  and  other
documentation relating to his request.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date 9 Dec 77.

Applicant’s Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  profile  since  1987
reflects the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              2 Mar 87                     9
              2 Mar 88                     9
             30 Dec 88                     9
             30 Dec 89                     9
             30 Dec 90                     4 (New rating system)
             30 Dec 91                     5
             30 Dec 92                     5
             30 Dec 93                     5
             30 Dec 94                     5
             14 Jul 95                     5
             14 Jul 96                     5
             14 Jul 97                     5

Applicant was awarded the AFCM, 4OLC, per Special Order G-    ,  dated
28 Jun 97, for the period 15 Mar 92 through 6 Jul 95.  The orders  are
dated 28 Jun 97 with an RDP date of 9 Jun 97.

Per message, dated 29 Sep 97, officials at  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Center (AFPC), Promotion Management Section,      AFB, , informed  the
applicant that the documentation provided did  not  clearly  establish
that a decoration recommendation was  placed  into  official  channels
prior to the date  promotion  selections  were  made  and  disapproved
applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle
97E7.  AFPC indicated that promotion selections for  cycle  97E7  were
made on 15 May 97 and  applicant’s  DECOR 6  (Request  for  Decoration
Printout) date was 9 Jun 97.

On 1 Jan 98, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the grade  of
technical sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of  1 Sep
92.  He was credited with 20 years, 3 months, and 11  days  of  active
service.

On 6 Aug 98, at the request of the Board, the AFBCMR  staff  contacted
the applicant to ask if he would accept coming  back  to  active  duty
should his appeal be approved.  Messages were left with his land  lady
and on his answering machine.  As of this date, no response  has  been
received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Recognition   Programs   Branch,   AFPC/DPPPRA,   reviewed   this
application and indicated that neither the  applicant  nor  statements
from  concerned  individuals  state  a  recommendation   package   was
submitted into official channels prior to 9 Jun 97 and  the  applicant
has made no effort  to  resolve  his  problem  through  administrative
channels.   He  has  been  informed  that   he   is   ineligible   for
consideration for supplemental promotion consideration because he  did
not provide documentation to show that a  recommendation  package  was
placed in official channels prior to the RDP date on his  orders.   He
was also informed that his request  could  not  be  processed  without
supporting  documentation.   DPPPRA  recommends  disapproval  of   the
applicant’s request for the RDP date on his AFCM with 4OLC be  changed
from 9 Jun 97 to 22 Jun 96.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant’s total  promotion  score
for the 97E7 cycle was 331.84 and the score required for selection  in
his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 334.59.  An  AFCM  is
worth three weighted promotion points.  This decoration would make him
a selectee to master sergeant during cycle 97E7  pending  a  favorable
data verification and the recommendation of his commander.  Promotions
for this cycle were made on 15 May 97 and announced on 5 Jun 97.

DPPPWB further states 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 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.   This
also  includes  decorations  that  were  disapproved   initially   but
subsequently resubmitted and  approved.   The  applicant’s  decoration
does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 97E7  cycle
because the RDP date is 9 Jun 97, after selections were made on 15 May
97 for the 97E7  cycle.   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.

Documentation included in  the  applicant’s  case  file  reflects  the
decoration was not officially  placed  into  military  channels  until
after selections for the 97E7 cycle were accomplished.  The orders are
dated 28 Jun 97, with an  RDP  date  of  9 Jun  97,  which  was  after
promotions for the 97E7 cycle were completed (15 May 97) and announced
(5 Jun 97).  There is no tangible evidence the decoration  was  placed
into official channels before selections for the 97E7 cycle were  made
and to approve the applicant’s request would not be fair or  equitable
to many others  in  the  same  situation  who  also  missed  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
the 97E7 cycle as an  exception  to  policy  was  disapproved  by  the
Promotion Management Section and DPPPWB concurs with this action.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  applicant  on
15 Dec 97 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was timely filed.

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,  a  majority  of
the Board is not persuaded that         should be amended  to  reflect
the RDP was changed from 9 Jun 97 to 22 Jun 96.  His  contentions  are
duly noted; however, a majority of  the  Board  does  not  find  these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the rationale provided by the Air Force.   A  majority  of  the  Board
therefore agrees with the recommendations of the Air Force and  adopts
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,  the  Board  majority  finds  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 Jul 98 and 18 May 99, under the provisions  of
Air Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Kenneth Reinertson, Member
                  Mr. Robert Zook, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Zook voted to grant the relief sought but does not wish to  submit
a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Nov 97, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 1 Dec 97.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 5 Dec 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Dec 97.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair


MEMORANDUM   FOR   THE   EXECUTIVE   DIRECTOR,   AIR    FORCE    BOARD
                        FOR    CORRECTION    OF    MILITARY    RECORDS
                          (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT, SSN

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.



                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                        CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT

      I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and do not
agree with the majority of the panel that the applicant’s requests
should be denied.

      I am persuaded by the statements of support by the Senior
Production Superintendent, the Chief of Maintenance, and the
applicant’s former reporting official that due to miscommunication,
lack of follow-up action, and a poor squadron awards tracking system,
the unit let the applicant down by not assuring he received his award
in a timely manner.  The applicant’s reporting official stated that he
was very busy and did not start the medal right away.  When he began
writing up the medal, his supervisor informed him that it was already
written up.  A few months later, the applicant had not received his
medal.

      Based on the above, the unequivocal statements of support, and
the applicant’s otherwise excellent performance history, I am
resolving any doubt concerning the submission of the award in the
applicant’s favor.  Accordingly, I agree with the minority member of
the panel and direct that the request for Decoration Printout (RDP)
for award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Fourth Oak Leaf
Cluster (4OLC), for the period 15 March 1992 to 6 July 1995, be
changed from 9 June 1997 to 22 June 1996, and that the applicant
receive the appropriate supplemental consideration for promotion to
the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with
cycle 97E7.



                                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                             Director
                                             Air Force Review Boards
Agency


INDEX CODE:  107, 131.01

AFBCMR 97-03417




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:

      The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air
Force relating to APPLICNAT,  SSN,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the
Request for Decoration Printout (RDP)  for  award  of  the  Air  Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM), Fourth Oak Leaf  Cluster  (4OLC),  for  the
period 15 March 1992 to 6 July 1995, was prepared on 22 June 1996.

       It  is  further  directed  that  he  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E7.

      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.

      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.





                                                            JOE     G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                           Air   Force
Review Boards Agency