RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02790
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that the Request  for  Decoration  Printout
(RDP) for the Air Force Achievement Medal, Third Oak Leaf Cluster  (AFAM,  3
OLC), was prepared on 30 April 1998, rather than 8 June 1998; and  the  AFAM
be considered in the promotion process for cycle 98E7.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Had the RDP been prepared when originally requested by his  supervisor,  the
decoration would have been considered in the promotion process during  cycle
98E7.

The applicant states that he should not be penalized for  an  administrative
oversight due to no fault of his own.

In support of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  statements  from  the  Vice
Commander and Director of Personnel, Air Force Reserve Command  (AFRC);  the
squadron commander; his supervisor, and a copy of the E-mail  message  which
requested the RDP.

The Vice Commander states that the decoration was not an after thought  once
the results of the promotion board were made known, but  a  genuine  concern
to see a deserving NCO recognized.

The squadron commander states that the applicant  should  not  be  penalized
because a decoration was not processed in a timely manner  due  to  internal
organizational delays.

The applicant’s supervisor states that he twice  requested  an  RDP  in  May
1998; however, he never received the RDP until  after  he  reported  to  his
current duty station.  The  applicant’s  supervisor  also  states  that  the
applicant was instrumental during the period of achievement for  initiating,
staffing, and nurturing administrative actions  which  eventually  made  the
Air Force Reserve the first component within the Department  of  Defense  to
stand-up  the  full  spectrum  of  Defense  Activity   for   Non-Traditional
Education Support (DANTES) testing.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
technical sergeant (E-6).

Promotion selections for cycle 98E7 were made on 19 May 1998  and  announced
on 4 June 1998.  The total weighted promotion score required  for  selection
in the  applicant's  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  was  359.47.   The
applicant's total  weighted  promotion  score  was  359.32.   The  Promotion
Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) was 31 December 1997.

On 8 June 1998, an RDP was prepared on the applicant.

Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command, Special Order G-068, dated 4  August
1998, awarded the applicant the AFAM, 3 OLC, for  the  period  1  July  1997
through 1 October 1997.  The AFAM is worth 1 point in the computation  of  a
members total weighted 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  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 cycle 98E7  were  announced,
the decoration was not considered in the promotion process for this cycle.

The applicant requested supplemental promotion consideration for cycle  98E7
based on the AFAM, 3 OLC, and his  request  was  denied  by  the  Air  Force
Personnel Center (AFPC).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed this application  and
states that there is no evidence the applicant’s supervisor made any  effort
prior to 30  April  1998  to  recommend  the  applicant  for  a  decoration.
Although recommending  officials  have  two  years  from  the  date  of  the
accomplishment, act or service performed to  recommend  an  individual,  the
applicant’s supervisor took  no  action  until  his  imminent  departure  to
recommend several individuals for decorations.  In  addition,  there  is  no
assurance that had his supervisor had the RDP five days after requesting  it
on 30 April 1998, that the recommendation package would have been  completed
and submitted into official channels prior to  selections  for  cycle  98E7.
Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this  application
and states the following:

      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 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 for promotion in,  as  well
as which performance reports and decorations will be used in  the  promotion
consideration.  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.

      b.    The decoration does not meet the criteria for  promotion  credit
during the 98E7 cycle because the RDP was  prepared  after  selections  were
made  for  the  cycle.   This  policy  was  initiated  28 February  1979  to
specifically  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.

      c.    While  documentation  included  in  the  applicant’s  case  file
reflects that a recommendation package for the subject  AFAM  was  submitted
on 8 June 1998, there is no indication the package was placed into  official
channels prior to selections for cycle 98E7.   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.
Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force  evaluations  and  states  that  since
selections were made for the 98E7 cycle on 19 May 1998, his total  promotion
score was unknown at the time of the request.  He  agrees  with  the  policy
referenced by AFPC/DPPPWB; however, his request is not based  on  an  after-
the-fact decoration.   He  believes  the  supporting  documentation  clearly
shows the intent to order the RDP prior to selections.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.


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.   The  statement   from   the
applicant’s supervisor and letters of support from his chain of command  are
noted; however, we are not persuaded that applicant has been the  victim  of
an error or injustice.  The  applicant  was  denied  supplemental  promotion
consideration by AFPC since  they  found  no  evidence  the  decoration  was
placed into official channels prior  to  selections  for  cycle  98E7.   The
applicant has provided no evidence to warrant overturning  AFPC’s  decision.
In addition, based on the evidence of record, we are not convinced that  had
his supervisor had the RDP five days after requesting it on 30  April  1998,
the recommendation package would have  been  completed  and  submitted  into
official channels prior to selections  for  cycle  98E7.   In  view  of  the
above, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air  Force  and
adopt 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 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 25 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Ms. Olgar M. Crerar, Member
                  Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 8 Oct 98.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Oct 98.




             HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                  Panel Chair