DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 
AFBCMR 98-01 544 

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: 

records of the Department of the Air  Force relating to 
corrected to show that: 

a.  He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective, and with  a date 
of rank of 1 September 1997  and any service commitment he incurred due to his promotion was 
waived by competent authority. 

b.  On 1 July 1998, he retired for length of service in the grade of master sergeant. 

Director 

I/  Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01544 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

His Air Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster 
(20LC), for the period  10 Jul  91 to  1 Jul 96, be  considered in 
the  promotion  process  for  cycle  9737  to  master  sergeant 
(promotions effective Aug 97 -  Jul 98). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
In Jun  96, he  PCA'd  (permanent change of  assignment) from  the 
m q u i p m e n t  Maintenance Squadron (EMS) to t h e w  Wing.  His 
supervisor  completed  the  draft  of  the  decoration prior  to  his 
retirement and it was reviewed by the Flight Chief prior to his 
PCA.  It was then left in the hands of the Assistant Flight Chief 
who did not follow up on it.  He found out that the points were 
not included in his score and began to try to determine why.  The 
decoration was  finally approved a full 19 months later after he 
PCA'd  from  the 
EMS  and  only after he pursued  it with  the 
help of his supervisor and some of the senior leadership from the 
wing. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Promotion selections for the cycle 9737 were made  on 15 May  97. 
The total weighted promotion score required for selection in the 
applicant's  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC) was  335.97.  The 
applicant's total weighted promotion score was 335.83. 
On 17 Dec 97, a Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) was 
prepared on the applicant for the purpose of recommending him for 
the AFCM, 20LC. 

-~ 

AFBCMR 98-0 1544 

Applicant was awarded the AFCr ,  20LC, 
through 1 Jul 96. 
of a member's  total promotion score. 

)r  the period  10 JuL 91 
The AFCM is worth 3  points in the computation 

For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion 
cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on o r   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. 
Since the RDP was prepared after selections for the cycle were 
announced, the  decoration was  not  considered  in  the  promotion 
process for cycle 9737. 
The applicant retired from the Air Force on 1 Jul 98 in the grade 
of technical sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank  (DOR) 
of 1 Dec 90.  He was credited with 20 years and 25 days of active 
service.  * 

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  for  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, 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 f o r   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  decoration  in  question  does  not  meet  the  criteria  for 
promotion  credit during  the  9737 cycle because  the RDP  date  is 
17 Dec 97, after selections were made  on 15 May 97 for the 9737 
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 

2 

AFBCMR 98-01544 

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  3 6 - 2 8 0 3 ,   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. 

DPPPWB states that there is no tangible evidence the decoration 
was placed into official channels before selections for the 9737 
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  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 on 27 Apr 9 8   and DPPPWB concurs with this action. 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is 
attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated, in part , 
that he does not feel the advisory opinion looked at all of the 
information submitted with his package.  He has no argument that 
the  decoration  was  not  put  into  proper  channels prior  to  the 
cutoff date for the promotion cycle and also that the decoration 
would have counted toward his promotion if the DECOR 6  had been 
requested before the selection date for the promotion cycle.  His 
argument  is  that  the  reason that  neither of  these  things were 
done was because  the person who  should have  been  insuring that 
everything was done on time neglected to do so.  He was denied 
promotion due to a combination of unfortunate circumstances and 
neglect.  He was never a discipline problem  and always did  far 
more than was expected of him  (see Exhibit E). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been 
demonstrate the  existence of  probable  error or 
applicant requests the AFCM, 20LC, be considered 

presented  to 
injustice.  The 
in the promotion 

3 

AFBCMR 98-0 1544 

process for cycle 9737.  After a thorough review of the evidence 
of record and the applicant’s submission, we agree.  It appears 
that  applicant‘s  supervisor  drafted  a  recommendation  for  the 
AFCM,  20LC;  however,  through  a  series  of  reassignments  and 
retirements of  applicant’s supervisory chain, the paperwork  was 
misplaced.  The decoration was  finally approved  and  awarded  to 
applicant in Feb 98, a full 19 months after the close-out date of 
the  award.  We  note  that  the  close-out date  of  the  award  was 
nearly one year before  the  date  of selections for cycle  9737. 
Clearly, had  the  award been  a part  of  his  records during  this 
promotion cycle, applicant would have become a selectee, as noted 
by  AFPC/DPPPWB. 
In  view  of  these  findings,  under  normal 
circumstances,  we  would  recommend  supplemental  promotion 
consideration; however, we note  that  applicant  is no  longer on 
active duty, having retired effective 1 Jul  98.  Therefore, we 
recommend  that  applicant  be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master 
sergeant, effective and with a date of  rank  (DOR) of  1 Sep 97. 
With this promotion applicant would incur an active duty service 
commitment  (ADSC)  of  two  years;  however,  since  applicant  is 
retired, we are of the opinion it would be somewhat unreasonable, 
and quite possibly financially and personally disruptive to the 
applicant to expect him to return to active duty to complete an 
ADSC.  Furthermore, we are not persuaded that it would be in the 
best  interests  of  the  Air  Force  to  return  this  individual  to 
active  duty; therefore, we  recommend  that  this  requirement  be 
waived.  In view of  the foregoing, we  recommend his 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: 

a.  He was promoted  to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant  (E-7), 
effective, and with a DOR of 1 Sep 97 and any service commitment 
he  incurred  due  to  his  promotion  was  waived  by  competent 
authority. 

b.  On  1 Jul  98, he  retired  for  length  of  service  in  the 

grade of master sergeant. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 29 September 1998, under the provisions of 
AFI 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

4 

AFBCMR 98-0 1544 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit  C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Jun 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR,  dated 28 Jun 98. 
Exhibit  E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 13 Jul 98 

Panel Chair 

r;/ 

5 

D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  AIR  FORCE  B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  AFPCDPPPWB 

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 his Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) 

Yd Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) be considered in the promotion process for cycle 97E7 to MSgt 
(promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul98). 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes his Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM)(2 

OLC), should be considered in the promotion process for cycle 97E7 because of the 
circumstances which caused the delay in its award. 

Facts.  The applicant's total promotion score for the 97E7 cycle is 335.83,  and the score 
required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 335.97.  The 
applicant missed promotion selection by 0.14 point.  An AFCM is worth 3 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 5 Jun 97.  Please note that the applicant 
has a High Year Tenure date of Jun 98 and a retirement date of 3 1 July 98. 

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 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 hlly 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 the RDP date is 17 Dec 97, 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 recommendation 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.  The orders are dated 25 Feb 98, with an RDP date of  17 Dec 97, which was after 
promotions for the 97E7 cycle were completed (1 5 May 97) and announced (5 Jun 97).  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 on 27 Apr 98.  We 
concur with this action. 

Recommendation.  Denial based on the rationale provided. 

4 

&2hid 
Chief, InquiriedBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion Branch 

Attachments: 
Extract Cy, AFI 36-2502