RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03608

                                        INDEX CODE:107.00/131.00

                                        COUNSEL: NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) date for the Air Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM) , First Oak Leaf Cluster (1 OLC), awarded for
meritorious service during the period 27 Jan 92 through 15 Aug 96, be
changed to a date in 1995.

He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of
master sergeant for cycle 96E7, with inclusion of the AFCM (10LC).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The lack of control over the decoration process and the untimely submission
of the decoration contributed to the delay in awarding him the AFCM (10LC).

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from the
Chief, 74ACS Orderly Room, copies of the special order awarding him the
AFCM (10LC) and the citation, and other documents associated with the
matter under review.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the personnel data system (PDS) indicates that
the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master
sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Feb 98. His Total Active
Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 18 Dec 80.

Special Order GA-XX, dated 15 Jan 97, reflects that the applicant was
awarded the AFCM (10LC) for meritorious service during the period 27 Jan 92
to 15 Aug 96. The RDP date was 22 Aug 96.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and
recommended denial.  DPPPWB noted that the applicant's total weighted
promotion score for the 96E7 cycle was 337.68 and the score required for
selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 338.15.  If
the decoration (worth three points) is counted in the applicant's total
score, he would become a selectee for promotion pending a favorable data
verification check and the recommendation of his commander.
Promotion selections for this cycle were made on 25 May 96 with a public
release date of 12 Jun 96.  He was selected for promotion to the grade of
master sergeant cycle 97E7, but has not yet assumed the grade.

DPPPWB 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 closeout date of the decoration must be on or
before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) , and the date of the
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 what 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 consideration.  The PECD for the cycle in
question was 31 Dec 95.  In addition, a decoration that a member claims was
lost, downgraded, etc., must be fully documented and verified that it was
placed into official channels prior to the selection date.

DPPPWB stated that, as evidenced by the special order awarding the
applicant's AFCM, the decoration did not meet the criteria for promotion
credit during the 96E7 cycle because the RDP date was  22 Aug 96--after
selections were made on 25 May 96 for the 96E7 cycle.  This policy was
initiated on 28 Feb 79 to specifically preclude personnel from subsequently
(after promotion selections) submitting someone for a decoration with a
retroactive decoration effective date (closeout) 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.  IAW 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. Again, resubmitted decorations (because the initial
decoration was downgraded, lost

                                  2
etc.) must be placed into official channels prior to the promotion
selection date.  There was no indication this package was reaccomplished
until 22 Aug 96 RDP Date, which was after promotions for the 96E7 cycle
were announced (12 Jun 96) and the applicant became aware he missed
promotion by less than three points.  Although the applicant has requested
that the RDP date be changed to a date in 1995, this change would still not
entitle him to supplemental promotion consideration for the 96E7 cycle as
the change would be done after the fact--after 25 May 96, the date
promotion selections were accomplished.

After an extensive review of the circumstances of this case to include
documentation the applicant has provided, there was no conclusive evidence
the lost decoration was resubmitted before the date of selections for the
96E7 cycle.  While DPPPWB is acutely aware of the impact this
recommendation has on the applicant's career, the fact is the lost
decoration was not resubmitted until after selections for this cycle were
made.  To approve the applicant's request would not be fair or equitable to
many others in the same situation who miss promotion selection by a narrow
margin and are not entitled to have an "after the fact" decoration count in
the promotion process.  According to DPPPWB, the applicant's request to
have the decoration included in the promotion process for cycle 96E7 as an
exception to policy was disapproved by the Promotion Management Section at
the Air Force Personnel Center on 4 Dec 97.  AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that
they concurred with this decision.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, are at Exhibit
B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 22 Dec 97
for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by
this office (Exhibit C).

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.  We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case,
including the statement from the Orderly Room Chief.  However, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility (OPR) and adopt


                                        3
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of
sufficient evidence to the contrary , we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 9 Jun 98, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
                 Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Dec 97.
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Dec 97.



                                  DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                  Panel Chair