RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02797
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. He be considered for promotion to the grade of master sergeant.

2. He be awarded a 10% increase in retired pay starting 12 January 1982.

  3.   He be awarded the Air Force Training Ribbon.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant states that, upon  retirement,  he  lacked  a  few  points  to  be
promoted to master sergeant.   Had  he  received  his  medals  in  a  timely
manner, he would have had the necessary  extra  points  for  promotion.   He
states promotion to master sergeant is not a favor, it  would  be  assisting
him to have the military title that  he  has  earned  and  to  which  he  is
entitled.  The Bronze Star Medal with Valor and Purple Heart are each  worth
five points.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  7  November  1962  and
entered active duty.

Applicant’s total promotion score for the 82A7 cycle  was  292.25,  and  the
score required for  selection  in  his  Control  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(CAFSC) was 328.32.

If the decorations were counted in the applicant’s  total  score,  he  would
not become a select for cycle 82A7.  Even with the ten  extra  points  added
he still missed promotion by 26.07 points.

Applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration  for  cycle  83A7  when
his Promotion Eligible Status (PES) code was “C” (declines an assignment).

Only award of the Silver Star Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross or  Airman’s
Medal for extraordinary heroism entitles enlisted members  to  consideration
for a 10% increase in retired pay.

The Purple Heart and the Bronze Star with Valor are worth 5 points each.

The Air Force Overseas Tour Ribbons  and  Air  Force  Training  Ribbon  were
established 12 October 1980.

Applicant served three tours in  (short  tour),  one  tour  in  Japan  (long
tour), and one tour in Germany (long tour).

The criteria for the Air Force Training Ribbon given  DOD  Manual  13-48.33,
Manual of Military Decorations & Awards, September 1996, states, “Before  19
December 1986, the ribbon was awarded to Air  force  members  who  completed
initial Air Force accession training after 14 August  1974.   Subsequent  to
19 December 1986, all Air Force members who completed  Air  Force  accession
training, regardless of when the training was completed, are authorized  the
ribbon.”

On 30 November 1982,  the  applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  and
retired in the grade  of  technical  sergeant  (E-6),  effective  1 December
1982.  He completed 20 years and 24 days of active service.

Based on an earlier  application,  on  1  July  1998,  the  Board  corrected
applicant’s record to  show  that  he  was  awarded  the  Purple  Heart  for
injuries sustained during an enemy rocket attack on 16 July 1967 in .

Applicant’s requests to add the Air Force Overseas Short  Tour  Ribbon,  Air
Force  Overseas  Long  Tour   Ribbon   with   1   Oak   Leaf   Cluster   was
administratively approved.  He was also awarded the Republic of  Ribbon.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, Promotion, Evaluation &  Recognition
Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the
applicant retired 30 November 1982, the first portion of the criteria  would
govern his request.  That is, the ribbon would be awarded only  for  members
who completed initial training after 14 August 1974.   Since  the  applicant
completed basic training in 1962, he would  not  be  eligible  for  the  Air
Force Training Ribbon.  The change in criteria in December 1986  applies  to
Air Force members who were on Active Duty  as  of  19 December  1986.   This
change is not retroactive to personnel  who  were  inactive,  separated,  or
retired as of  19  December  1986.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing
Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this  application  and  states  that  Air
Force policy 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
Recommendation 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 31 December 1980.  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.

These decorations do not meet the criteria for promotion credit  during  the
82A7 cycle because there is no tangible evidence the decoration  was  placed
into official channels prior to the date selections for the 82A7 cycle  were
made.  This policy was initiated 29 February 1979 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, 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.   Therefore,  they
recommend applicant’s request be denied.

A complete  copy  of  their  Air  Force  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is
attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and  states  that  documentation  for
the medals were submitted in a timely  manner;  however,  the  documentation
was misplaced.  Applicant states  that  he  submitted  for  his  medals  and
awards as soon as he became aware that they were not a part of his  records.
 He was unaware of this due to  related health problems he was  experiencing
throughout the years.  He would inquire about the awards, and was told  that
either they had been approved or they were awaiting news.   He  states  that
if he had been granted his medals, he would  have  qualified  for  E-6  much
sooner.  This would have qualified him  for  testing  sooner  for  E-7.   He
believes that he would have  had  more  opportunities  to  test  before  his
health problems  became  overwhelming  causing  him  to  retire  instead  of
accepting an assignment.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing
Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  in
accordance with Air Force Manual  37-139,  Table  36-22,  Rule  13  and  29,
“Records disposition Schedule”, promotion history files are  maintained  for
a period of 10  years.   Since  each  individual  considered  for  promotion
receives  his/her  own  individual  score  notice,  10  years  is   normally
considered  an  adequate  period  to  resolve  any  promotion  inquiries  or
concerns.  Because of the passage of time we are unable to  determine  which
cycles the member was considered or if the 10 additional  points  for  these
decorations would have made him a selectee for any cycle to  TSgt  prior  to
the 79A6 cycle.

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

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, Promotion, Evaluation &  Recognition
Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, also reviewed this application and states that  the
applicant is not entitled to a  10%  increase  in  retired  pay  for  having
received the Purple Heart Medal or the Bronze  Star  Medal  with  V  device.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with  attachment,  is  attached
at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and states that  if  he  was  awarded
the Purple Heart and Bronze Start Medal with Valor when he was  suppose  to,
he would have had the additional 10 points  for  promotion  and  would  have
been promoted to technical  sergeant  sooner.   He  would  have  tested  for
master sergeant many more times and would have made  it.   As  for  the  10%
increase in retirement pay, if  he  was  awarded  the  medals  when  he  was
suppose to, he would  have  retired  as  a  master  sergeant  not  technical
sergeant, thus the difference in pay which he was told was  about  10%.   He
states that according to his performance reports  he  was  never  ineligible
for any reasons such as a control roster or not  being  recommended  by  his
commanders.  His supervisors wanted him promoted to master sergeant.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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;  however,
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.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Edward C. Koenig, Member
                  Mr. Gregory W. Den Herder, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 21 Jan 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Jan 99 w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Feb 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Feb 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Sep 99.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 7 Sep 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Oct 99.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Oct 99.




                                THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                Panel Chair