RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02941
INDEX CODE: 107.00, 131.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC),
covering the period 19 May 1993 to 25 June 1996, be considered in the
promotion process for the 98E6 cycle to technical sergeant (E-6)
(promotions effective August 1998 - July 1999).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to much confusion surrounding his being medically disqualified, moving
to a new section and seeking a new Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), the
suspense for his decoration came and went with no notice. Once discovered,
immediate action was taken. Based on the circumstances which caused the
delay in the award of the decoration, he should not be denied promotion
consideration for the 98E6 cycle due to the oversight and negligence of
others.
In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of his application to
the supplemental promotions board and the disapproval message from HQ
AFPC/DPPPWM (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that
the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 7
July 1983. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff
sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 March 1991.
The applicant’s submission included a copy of the commander’s
recommendation for award of the AFCM 1OLC, signed 18 June 1998, and Special
Order GB-042, dated 22 June 1998, awarding the applicant the AFAM 1OLC for
meritorious service during the period 19 May 1993 - 25 June 1996.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Airman Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the applicant’s
total promotion score for the 98E6 cycle was 359.26, and the score required
for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 359.71.
If the decoration 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. Promotions for this cycle were
made on 20 May 1998 and announced 4 June 1998.
DPPPWB stated 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 dictates that before
a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close 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. The PECD
for the 98E6 promotion cycle was 31 December 1997. 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.
DPPPWB indicated that the applicant’s AFAM 1OLC does not meet the criteria
for promotion credit during the 98E6 cycle because there is no tangible
evidence the decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date
selections for the 98E6 cycle were made (20 May 98). The applicant’s
request to have the decoration included in the promotion process for cycle
98E6 as an exception to policy was disapproved by the Promotion Management
Section at HQ AFPC. Based on the rationale provided, DPPPWB recommended
the applicant’s request be denied. A complete copy of this evaluation is
appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16
November 1998 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (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. 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our
decision. In this respect, we note that the award in question does not
meet the criteria for promotion credit because no documentation has been
provided showing that a recommendation package was placed into official
military channels prior to 20 May 1998, the date selections were made for
the 98E6 cycle. 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 4 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Nov 98, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Nov 98.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
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. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 July 1999, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. After reviewing...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 January 1999 for review and response. Had the applicant’s orderly room been responsive within a reasonable period of time, and the award placed in official channels, applicant's score for selection in his Controlled Air Force...
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. 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03144 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The close out date of the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM 1OLC), be changed from 15 June 1998 to 15 December 1997 [and, if approved, he be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, states that the wing commander’s note that he did not want to affect anyone’s promotion has been lost and, in fact, did affect the applicant’s promotion by changing the closeout date. The documentation included in the applicant’s case file reflects the closeout date of his decoration was 1 Oct 98 and the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, states that the wing commander’s note that he did not want to affect anyone’s promotion has been lost and, in fact, did affect the applicant’s promotion by changing the closeout date. The documentation included in the applicant’s case file reflects the closeout date of his decoration was 1 Oct 98 and the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the...
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Through no fault of the applicant, his record was incomplete at the time he was considered for promotion in the 98E6 cycle in that the AFCM in question was not in his records. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed the application and states although the recommendation package was not submitted on the day the DECOR-6 was requested, and not in official channels until June 1998, the decoration was awarded well within the required three-year limit. Therefore, they have no recommendations regarding a Supplemental Selection Board. Current Air Force...
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. 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...
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. 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...