DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

2 7 1998 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 
AFBCMR 98-008 18 

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: 

ilitary records of the Department of the Air Force relating 
be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade 
ith date of rank of 1 May  1998. 

c/ Director 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

-

-

 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

v????! 7 1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00818 

COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT : 
The Air  Force Achievement Medal  with  1  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AFAM 
loLC),  for  the  period  18 October  1996  to  20 December  1996, be 
included in his records and he be granted supplemental promotion 
consideration for Cycle 9737 to master sergeant. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Exclusion of the AFAM was due to administrative errors 
beyond  his  control.  He  was  deployed 
nd 
member  of  the  organization  that  re 
im 
decoration.  This  is  not  an  attempt  to  get  one  of 
promoted. 
In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of his 
original  request  for  supplemental  promotion,  a  resubmission 
letter,  two  disapproval messages,  three  letters of  support and 
copies of an approved Decor 6. 
Applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

and delays 
was  not  a 
for  this 
their  own 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of technical sergeant. 
Promotion selections for the cycle 97E7 were made on 15 May 1997 
and announced on 5 June 1997.  The total weighted promotion score 
required  for  selection  in  the  applicant's  Control  Air  Force 
Specialty  Code  (CAFSC)  was  340.98. 
The  applicant's  total 
weighted promotion score was 340.46. 

On  1 April  1997, a Recommendation for Decoration Printout  (RDP) 
was prepared on the applicant for the purpose of recommending him 
for  the  AFAM,  1OLC.  Applicant's  supervisor  signed  the  RDP  on 
23 May 1997 and his commander approved it on 12 June 1997. 

m C M R  98-00818 

On  23  June  1997,  the  applicant was  awarded  the AFAM,  lOLC  for 
outstanding achievement during the period 18 October 1996 through 
20 December  1996.  The  AFAM,  lOLC  is  worth  one  point  in  the 
computation of a member's total promotion score. 

For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a 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 
RDP  must  be  before  the  date  of  selections  for  the  cycle  in 
question. 
In  applicant's  case  the  PECD  for  cycle  97E7  was 
31 December  1996. 
If  a  decoration  is  lost  or  downgraded, 
documentation must  be  submitted  to  show  that  it was placed  in 
official channels prior to the selection date. 
Although  the  RDP  was  prepared  before  selections  for  the  cycle 
were  announced,  the  decoration  was  not  considered  in  the 
promotion  process  for  cycle  9737  because  it  was  placed  in 
official channels after selections had been made. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Recognition  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPRA,  reviewed  the 
application  and  stated  that  the  applicant  is  contending 
administrative delays prevented earlier award of this decoration. 
In order to request reconsideration for the 9737 promotion cycle, 
the decorations had  to have been  in official channels prior  to 
the  Promotion  Eligibility  Cutoff  Date  (PECD) of  15 May  1997 
(sic), which was the cutoff date for cycle 97E7.  The statements 
provided  reflect that  a DECOR-6 RIP  was  ordered on  20 December 
1996 and originally was mailed on 27 December 1996.  It was lost 
and reordered on 1 April  1997.  There  is no indication that the 
The 
recommendation  package  was  placed  in  official  channels. 
purpose  of  awarding  decorations  is  not  to  provide  points  for 
promotion  consideration,  but  to  reward  individuals  for 
meritorious achievement or service.  Reconsideration for changing 
the RDP  date of this decoration is  invalid because  there  is no 
evidence  the  recommendation  package  was  placed  in  official 
channels prior to  12 June 1997.  The applicant's  request is not 
considered  valid  in  accordance  with  prevailing  Air  Force 
Instructions. 

DPPPRA recommended disapproval of his request. 

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

The  Enlisted  Promotion  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  the 
application and stated that while  they are acutely aware of the 
impact this recommendation has on applicant's career, there is no 
tangible evidence the decoration was placed in official channels 
before  selections  for  cycle  97E7  were  made. 
To  approve  this 
request would not be fair or equitable to many others in the same 

AFBCMR 98-00818 

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.  Therefore, they recommend denial 
of the request. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S  REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that 
it appears that the Air Force is overlooking some very basic and 
common sense factors.  What would be  the purpose  of ordering a 
DECOR-6  in  December  if  you  are  not  going  to  use  it  until 
May/June.  He  believes  the  fact  that  the  original  DECOR-6 was 
found and submitted in the second package clearly show intent to 
award the decoration.  He is not trying to beat the system, only 
trying  to  show  that  he  is  a  victim  of  administrative  loss  or 
error. 
It  also  seems  the  Air  Force  is  totally  disregarding  the 
statements  from  the  individuals  primarily  responsible  for  the 
initiation of this award.  It  seems that Air  Force Core Values 
would come into play here and the integrity of appointed leaders 
is being  called  into  question.  You  could  not  ask  for  a more 
definitive  reason  for  the  delays  than  the  statements  from  the 
individuals responsible for submitting him for the award.  In a 
court  of  law,  he  would  surmise  this  would  be  equal  to  an 
eyewitness. 
He  differs on the Air  Force opinion on the purpose  of  awarding 
decorations.  It serves a twofold purpose primarily to recognize 
meritorious  service and equally to provide points  for promotion 
consideration.  To  be  fair  and  equitable  to  others  in  similar 
situations, he feels if they are able to provide evidence similar 
to his they should be considered for promotion also.  This is not 
an after the fact decoration.  Not he nor anyone in the chain of 
command could have been aware of the selection dates or release 
date for E-7 and therefore are clearly not  trying to breach  the 
process.  He finds it unfathomable that in the greatest nation on 
earth  that  uses  as  a basis  for  its  existence  one  of  the most 
magnificent  documents  ever  written  (US  Constitution)  that  is 
continuously being  interpreted  regarding  its  intent  and  spirit 
that we do not use the same rational for Air  Force Instructions 
when the appearance of conflict arises. 

Applicant's  complete response it attached at Exhibit F. 

AFBCMR 98-00818 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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 
thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  submitted  with  this 
appeal, we are.persuaded that the contested Air Force Achievement 
Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, should have been considered during 
promotion cycle  9737.  In this respect, it appears that through 
no  fault of his own, the applicant's  original DECOR-6 was lost, 
as substantiated by his supervisor and commander.  While it is a 
fact  that  the  award  was  not  placed  in  official  channels until 
12 June  1997,  the  commander  states  that  had  he  seen  the 
recommendation for  the  award  earlier,  he  would  have  signed  it. 
It is apparent that except for the administrative delays, caused 
by  the  pending  departure  of  applicant's  supervisor,  the  award 
would have been processed in a timely manner and applicant would 
have received credit for the award during cycle 9737 and become a 
selectee.  We do not believe it would be  fair and equitable for 
the  applicant  to  be  penalized  for  something  which  was  clearly 
beyond the scope of his responsibility.  In view of the foregoing 
and in an effort to prevent any  further injustice, we recommend 
applicant's records be corrected as indicated below. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was promoted 
to the grade of master sergeant effective and with date of rank 
of 1 May 1998. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 17 September 1998, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Mar 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

4 

mcMR 98-00818 

Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPM, dated 30 Mar 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 31 Mar 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 April 98. 
Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, undated. 

THA MAUST 
Panel Chair 

- .  

5 

DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE  B A S E  TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM  HQ AFPC/DPPPlU 

550 C Street West Ste 12 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4714 

30 March 1998 

SUBJECT: Application for Correction ofMilitary Records (DD Form 149) 

1.  REQUESTED ACTION.  Applicant requests his Air Force Achievement Medal with 1 Oak 
Leaf Cluster be included in his promotion testing records for Cycle 97E7. 
2.  BASIS FOR REQUEST.  Applicant claims administrative delays prevented earlier award of 
this decoration. 

3.  FACTS. 

a.  Applicant was deployed to th 
unit submitted his for the Air Force 

upply Squadron in Panama 18 Oct-20 Dec 96.  That 
vement Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster. 

b.  A DECOR-6 RIP was requested fiom his  arent Unit odabout 20 Dec 96; the original was 
Logistics Group stated in his 23 Jul97 Merno- 
mailed on 27 Dec 96.  The Commander of th 
randum, “The RIP was subsequently lost and never made it to us.  We reordered it 1 Apr 97 and 
received it approximately 14 Apr 97.  Had I seen it earlier, 1 would have signed it without any 
reservation.” 

4 

c.  The DECOR-6 RIP furnished shows it was signed by the supervisor on 23 May 97 and 
indorsed on 12 Jun 97.  The RDP date, which is the date the RIP was requested, is 1 Apr 97. 

d.  The Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for Cycle 97E7 was 15 May 97.  HQ 

AF’PCIDPPPWM explained in their 10 Oct 97 E-Mail that his request for consideration for pro- 
motion was disapproved because the DECOR-6 date must be before the date selections for pro- 
motions are made.  Since the Commander did not indorse the DECOR-6 until 12 Jun 97, the 
decoration could not be considered in that promotion cycle. 

980081 8 

4.  DISCUSSION. In order to reauest reconsideration for the 97E7 promotion cycle, the appli- 
cant’s decorations had to have bein in official channels prior to the PECD of 15-May 97.  The 
applicant, and all the statement provided, only reflect that a DECOR-6 RIP was ordered prior to 
that date.  There is no indication that the recommendation package was in official channels prior 
to 15 May 97.  The purpose of awarding decorations is not to provide points for promotion con- 
sideration, but to reward individuals for meritorious achievement or service.  Reconsideration for 
changing the RDP date of this decoration is invalid, because there is no evidence the recommen- 
dation package was placed in official channels prior to 12 Jun 97, only that a DECOR-6 RIP was 
ordered prior to 1997. Therefore, the applicant’s request is not considered valid in accordance 
with prevailing Air Force Instructions. 

5. RECOMMENDATION. 

a.  We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for his Air Force Achievement 

Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster to be included in his promotion testing records for Cycle 97E7. 

FOR THE COMMANDER 

, 

GEORGIA A. WISE, DAFC 
Recognition Programs Branch 
Promotions, Eva1 & Recognition Div 

98008 1 8 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

~- 

__ 

- 

1 

- . .  

' Chapter 3- 

. 

.. 

._. 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES 

- 

\ 

3.1.  Initiating a Recommendalion. Submit recommendations  as soon as possible following the act, 
achievement, or service.  Enter each recommendation (except the Purple Heart) into official channels 
within 2 years and award within 3.yeqs of the act, achievement, or service performed.  NOTE: A recom- 
mendation is placed in official channels when the recommending official signs' the recommendation 
(DECOR6 and justification) and a higher official in the chain of command endorses it. 

-

,

 

3.1.1.  You may resubmit recommendations that were placed into official channels within the pre- 
scribed time limits, but no award was made because the recommendation was lost or was not pro- 
cessed or acted on due to administrative error,  Reconsideration is contingent on the presentation of 
credible evidence that the recommendation was officially placed in military channels or was submit- 
ted, but not acted on through loss or inadvertence.  Process the recommendation following the origi- 
nal channels.  NOTE: When organizations no longer exist, process the recommendation through the 
replacement organizations. 

3.2.  Preparing a Recommendation. Submit  a  Recommendation  for  Decoration  Printout 
(RDP-DECOR-6). descriptive justification, and citation for an individual recommendation.  Submit an 
RDP, descriptive justification, and citation for each person when more than one person is recommended 
for the same decoration and for the same act, achievement, or service. 

I 

3.2.1.  Content.  Classify recommendations according to content.  Consider a recommendation "for 
official use only" until the awarding authority announces its final decision. 
32.2. Classified,  Do not include any classified, highly sensitive, or special category information 
requiring special handling procedures in regular recommendations for decorations. 
3.2.3.  RDP-DECOR6. Prepare an individual recommendation on an RDP-DECOR 6.  Sign RDP and 
attach the justification. 

3.2.3.1.  Use a memorandum or letter for an individual recommendation for a foreign officer, sep- 
arated member, or a member from another service. The memorandum or letter must contain same 
information as the RDP and must be signed. 

3.2.4.  Descriptive Justification. Fully justify all award recommendations to avoid the perception that 
decorations are automatic,  Avoid generalities, broad or vague terminology, superlative adjectives or 
a recapitulation of  duties performed.  The justification must provide concrete examples of  exactly 
what the person did, how well he or she did it, what the impact or benefits were, and how that person 
significantly exceeded duty performance.  Use the following formats: 

3.2.4.1.  Prepare Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) justification on Air Force Form 642, Air 
Force Achievement Medal and Air Force Commendation Medal Justification or on the AF 
Form 2274, Air Force Achievement Medal Certificate. 
3.2.4.2.  Prepare Air Force Commendation Medal justification  (AFCM) on AI; Form 642 or on 
bond paper when the description does not lend itself to the AF Form 642.  Justification must be 
signed.  Use appropriate signature block. 

- 

**FOUO** 1 DPMAJA2 APR APPEAL; DPMAJA2 PHONE NR 72415/75611  FILE DATE:31 MAR  98 

MS M  DOB 

PH 3508 

PAFSC  2S071 
GRD 36 
DOR 940501  CAFSC  2S071 
EFF 940501  2AFSC 
PGR 

UTF 

TAFMSD 820521  DOS  000502 
PAS 
PAY-DT 810711  DAS  951109  GPAS 
EAD 
ETS 

820521  DDLDS 951026  DEPART 980510 
981102  DEROS 951027  RNLTD  980531 

EFF-DT 
960601 
951109 
931027 
920604 
901221 
890916 
880415 
870718 
860609 
841203 

DAFSC 
25071 
25071 
2S051 
25051 
64550 
64550 
64550 
64550 
64550 
64570 

LV DUTY TITLE 
WB  NCOIC, MOBILITY SECTION 
WB NCOIC, MICAP 
WB NCOIC, MATERIAL CONTROL 
WB ASST NCOIC TRAINING 
WB NCOIC, TRAINING 
WB NCOIC, MATERIAL CONTROL 
WB MATERIAL CONTROL SPECIALIST 
WB MATERIAL CONTROL SPECIALIST 
WB DEMAND PROCESSING TECHNICIAN 
WB MAINT SUPPLY LIAISON CLERK 

LElCFD8K 
LJOJFJBN 

APR DATA 
R  C/O-DT 
5B 980320 
5B 970320 
533  960515 
5B 950515 
5B 940515 
5B 931001 
5B 930603 
5B 920603 
SB 910829 
5B 900829 
533  900415 
9A 090415 

SRNXT 

980081 8 

._  

DEPARTMENT OF  THE A I R   F O R C E  

HEADQUARTERS AIRFORCEPERSONNELCENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  AFPCIDPPPWB 

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

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting his Air Force Achievement Medal with 1 Oak 

Leaf Cluster be included in his promotion testing records for cycle 97E7. 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes his Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) with 1 
Oak Leaf Cluster, should be considered in the promotion process for cycle 97E7 because of the 
cixcumstances which caused the delay in its award. 

Facts.  The applicant’s total promotion score for the 97E7 cycle is 340.46, and the score 
required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 340.98.  The 
applicant missed promotion selection by .52  point.  An AFAM is worth 1 weighted promotion 
point.  The 1 point this decoration is worth 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 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 fox 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 consideration.  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.  This also includes decorations that were disapproved 
initially but subsequently resubmitted and approved. 

b.  This decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 97E7 cycle 
because although the RDP date is 1 Apr 97 it was not placed into official channels until 12 Jun 
97 (signed by commander), after selections were made on 15 May 97 for the 97E7 Cycle.  This 
policy was initiated 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 rtxomendation was not acted upon 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.  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.  While we are 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 97E7 cycle were made.  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.  We concur with this action. 

Recommendation. Denial based on the rationale provided. 

Chief, InquiriedBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion Branch 

Attachments: 
Extract Cy, AFT  36-2502 

- 

culaling Points And Factors For \YAPS (SSp;t throuEh MSR~). 

e2.2.  C 

E! 
R 
A 
U 
II 
the 
L 
factor 
E 
- 
is 
- 
SKT 
I 
- 
PFE 
2 
TIS 
3 

- 
4 

TIG 

- 
5 

Decora- 
tions 

- 
6 

EPR 
score 

- 

D 

then the maximum score Is 
100 pts.  Basc  individual score on percentage correct (two decimal places) (see note 1). 

of the promotion cycle.  Credit 1/6 point for each month of  TAFMS (15  days or more - 116 pt; 
40 pts. Award 2 pts for each year of TAFMS up to 20 years, do the last day of the last monh 

drop periods less than  15 days).  EXAMPLE:  The last day of tbe last month of the cycle (3 1 Jul 
93)  minus  TAFMSD (1 8  Jul  86)  equals 7  years,  I4 days  (inclusive  dates  considered  equals 
7x2-14 PIS).  (See note 1). 
60 pts.  Award  1/2 pt for each month in grade up to 10 years, as of the fist day of the last 
month of the promotion cycle (count  15 days or more as 1/2 pt;  drop periods less than  15 days). 
EX4MPL.E  The fist day of the last month of h e  promotion cycle (1 Jul93) minus current DOR 

(1 Jan 90) equals 3 years. 6 months.  1 day (inclusive dates considered) equals 42 x .5  - 21 pts. 

(See note 1). 
25 points.  Assign each decoration a point value based on its order of precedence. (See note 2 ). 
MedaI of Honor 
AFlNavy/Distinguished Service Crosses 
Defense Distinguished Svc Medal, Distinguished Svc Medal, Silvcr Star 
Legion of Merit, Def Superior Svc Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross 
AirmanWSoldier'sMavy-Marine CorpdCoast GuardlBronze StarDefensc 

15 
11 
9 
7 
5 

Meritorious Service Medals. Purple Heart 

AuJAerial AchievemenllAF Commendatiodhy CommendatiodNavy 

Commendationlloint Services CommendatiodCoast Guard Commendation 
Navy AchievemcnVCoast Guard AchievemenVAF AchievemenllYoint Service 

3 

1 

Achievement Medals 
135 PIS.  Multiply each EPRlAPR rating that closed out w/in 5 years immediately preceding the 
PECD, not  to exceed 10 reports, by  the time weighted factor for that specific report.  The time 
weighting factor begins with 50 for the most recent report and decreases in increments of five (50- 
45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-5) for  each  report  on  file.  Multiply  that  product by  the  EPWAPR 
conversion  factor  (27  for  EPRs  or  15  for  APRs).  Repeat  this  step  for  each  rcport.  After 
calculating each reportt add the total value of each report for a sum.  Divide that sum by the sum 
(129.60). 
of  the  time  weighted  factors  added  together  for  the  promotion  performance fac!or 
E M P m  EPWAPR string (most recent to oldest): 
5B-4B-9A-gA-gA-9A 
5x50-250x27-6750 
4x45-180x27-4860 

9 x 40- 3 6 0 ~  15 - 5400 
9 x 25 -225  x 15 - 3375 

9 x 35  315 x IS  4725 
9 ~ 3 0 - 2 7 0 x  15-4050 

29160 

-------  - 129.60 

225 

I  I _  

29160 

225 

(See notes 1 and 3). 

\ 

NOTES: 
q  1. Cut scores off after the second decimal place.  Do not use the third decimal place to round up or down. 
2.  The decoration ctoseout date must be on or before the PECD.  The "prepared" date of the DECOR 6 recommendation for 
decoration printout (RDP) must be before the date AFMPC made the selections for promotion.  Fully document resubmitted 
decorations (downgraded, lost, ttc.)  and verify they were placed into official channels prior to the selection date.'When 
the 
date of the special order is prior to the month promotion selections are made, the decoration will automatically update the 
promotion master file.  If the date of the special order is the  month  selections arc made or later, send  a  message  to HQ 
AFMPUDPMAJW to consider the decoration for promotion.  If there is more than one year between the closeout date.  the 
special order date, and RDP date, provide a case file including all documentation supporting the decoration.  The message 
must include the following infomation: 
2.1.  Date of the special order, order number, and issuing headquarters. 
2.2.  Decoration authorized (indicate number of awards, Le., basic,  1 OLC. etc.) 
2.3.  Date of DECOR 6 (RDP) as shown on the special order. 
2.4.  Inclusive dates of the award. 
2.5.  Date of amendments, if any, order number, issuing headquarters, and the reason for the amendment. 
3.  Multiply all performance reports with  an "A"  designator by  15  and compute all reports with  a  lBll designator using a 
multiplier of 27.  Do not count noncvaluated' periods of  performance, i.e.,  break h service. report removed through appeal 
process.  etc..  in the computation.  For  example,  compute an EPR  string of 4B, D. 5B.  4B  the  same as  4B, 5B. 4B  EPR 
ctrinp. 

980081 8 

For Xionics Internal Use Only: 
Decompression Error  (normal TIFF file) 
HP LaserJet 4000 Series 
XipPrint Version 1.40  04 December 1997  12:52:35 PM 

Compression Type: CCITT Group 4 2D 

Interface Status: 0x13: 

ASIC INT set. 
ASIC NOT-DONE bit set  (ERROR: Should be cleared). 
Input FIFO full. 

Error status  Ox002B: 

DONE status bit clear  (ERROR: Should be set). 
ERROR status bit set  (ERROR: Should be cleared). 
IDREQ status bit set  (ERROR: Should be cleared). 

Error Bit Set -  Error Code: 
Unknown code or vertical code exceeds width 

X  (16 pixels/word) value error: Should be 0 if output FIFO 
completes line.  X was 253 words. Words/line =  600 
Y  (lines) value error: Should be 6400 if Output FIFO is to fill the page 
Y line count only reached =  6039 
TIFF compressed data completely sent to ASIC. 

Decompression Operations: OK #  =  211, Failed #  =  1, Total #  =  212 
Flushed images/files (due to data size) =  0 

Reg1 s t er 

Dump : 

R(05) - >  
R(0A) - >  
R(0F) - >  
R(14) - >  
R(19) - >  
R(1E) - >  
R(23) - >  
R(28) - >  
R(2D) - >  
R(32) - >  
R(37) - >  
R(3C)  - >  

R(01) - >  
6900  R(06) - >  
005B  R(0B) - >  
0000  R(10) - >  
12A3  R(15) - >  
0000  R(1A) - >  
0000  R(1F)  - >  
DFFF  R(24) - >  
0000  R(29)  - >  
0000  R(2E) - >  
002B  R(33) - >  
FFFF  R(38) - >  
0000  R(3D) - >  

500B 
0000 
0000 
0000 
0000 
OODC 
0000 
OFFF 
FC77 
ED5C 
DO90 
ccoo 
0065 

- >   0002 
- >   00F3 
- >   0000 
- >   06A0 
- >   1824 
- >   OOFF 
- >   FFFF 
- >   OF00 
- >   0865 
- >   FF73 
- >   0000 
- >   5A1D 
- >   2D00 

R(03) - >  
R(08) - >  
R(0D) - >  
R(12) - >  
R(17) - >  
R(1C) - >  
R(21) - >  
R(26) - >  
R(2B) - >  
R(30) - >  
R(35) - >  
R(3A) - >  
R(3F) - >  

0000 
0010 
0000 
0895 
0000 
0100 
FFFF 
OF00 
FFFF 
0000 
0000 
0181 
0000 

- >   0000 
- >   005B 
- >   0000 
- >   0000 
- >   OOlD 
- >   0100 
- >   FFFF 
- >   OF00 
- >   FFFF 
- >   FFFF 
- >   0200 
- >   0001