RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00319
            INDEX CODE: 107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force Achievement  Medal  (AFAM),  with  1  Oak  Leaf  Cluster
(10LC), be considered in the promotion process for the cycle 97E6.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although the citation for the Air Force Achievement Medal  (AFAM)  was
signed after selections were made, he  feels  that  enough  supporting
evidence has been provided to prove that the  decoration  was  awarded
for accomplishments in 1996 and is not an “after the fact”  decoration
simply for promotion  purposes.   If  the  authorizing  authority  who
signed the decoration is willing to have special  orders  produced  to
change the Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) date  then  he  feels
that it is a valid request to have this one valuable point  added  and
to adjust his 97E6 testing information.

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 97E6 were made on 19 May  1997  with  a
public release date  of  5  June  1997.   Applicant’s  total  weighted
promotion score for the 97E6 cycle was 340.42 and the  score  required
for selection in his Control Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (CAFSC)  was
340.82.  The promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) was 31  December
1996.

On 14 May 98, a  Recommendation  for  Decoration  Printout  (RDP)  was
prepared on the applicant and on 2 June 1999, by Special  Order-GA-XXX
the date was amended to read 1 December 1996.

The XXXth Mission Support Squadron (ACC), Special Order GA-XXX,  dated
2 June 1999, awarded the applicant the  Air  Force  Achievement  Medal
(AFAM, 1OLC) for the period 8 September 1996 through 12 December 1996.
 The AFAM is worth 1 point in  the  computation  of  a  members  total
weighted promotion  score.   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.

On 21 December  1998,  applicant’s  request  to  have  the  decoration
included in the promotion process for cycle 97E6 as  an  exception  to
policy was disapproved by the Promotion Management Section at the  Air
Force Personnel Center.

He was selected for promotion to TSgt during cycle 98E6,  and  assumed
the grade 1 March 1999.

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  selection  for  cycle  97E6  was
announced, the decoration was not considered in the promotion  process
for this cycle.

His EPRs rendered from 1993 to present reflects a  rating  of  “5”  in
evaluation of potential on all reports.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  Enlisted   Promotion   Branch,
AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the  AFAM  does
not meet the criteria for promotion  credit  during  the  97E6  cycle.
Although the request for decoration printout (RDP)  date  was  changed
from 14 May 1998 to 1 December 1996 per Special Order GA-XXX,  2  June
1999, it was still not placed into  official  channels  until  29  May
1998.  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  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.  This decoration was considered to  have
been placed into official channels when the decoration  recommendation
was signed by the commander on 29 May 1998.  There  is  no  indication
this package was accomplished until  after  promotions  for  the  97E6
cycle were made on 19 May 1997.  Although the applicant requested  the
RDP date be changed to 1 December 1996, this change  would  still  not
entitle him to supplemental promotion consideration for the 97E6 cycle
as the change was not accomplished until 2 June 1999, after the fact.

There is no conclusive evidence the decoration  was  submitted  before
the date of selections for the 97E6 cycle.   They  are  aware  of  the
impact this recommendation has on the  applicant’s  career.   However,
the fact remains that the decoration was  not  submitted  until  after
selections for this  cycle  were  made.   Therefore,  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.  Accordingly, they recommend denial of  applicant’s
request.

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.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

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 presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission,  we  believe  that  the
award in question should have been a part of his record prior  to  the
97E6 promotion cycle.   In this respect, we note  the  statement  from
his supervisor indicating that the applicant was  deployed  to  XXXXXX
XXXXXX AB, with another unit and was overlooked for  the  award.   The
squadron was going through numerous supervision changes  and  was  not
familiar with the individual achievements of those  not  belonging  to
that squadron.  In addition, the RDP date was changed  to  1  December
1996, and based on that decision, we fail to understand why the  award
should not be considered during the 97E6  promotion  cycle.   Had  the
AFAM, 1 OLC, been awarded within a reasonable period of time, it would
have been a part of his record prior to the 97E6 cycle  and  he  would
have been a selectee.  Applicant was considered  and  selected  during
the 98E6 cycle and  has  been  promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant.  Therefore, we recommend that his records  be  corrected  to
show that he was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective
1 May 1998, the date he would have received had he  been  selected  by
the 97E7 cycle.

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 technical sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1
May 1998.

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
            Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
            Ms. Lela L. O’Connor, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 June 1999, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 July 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 July 1999.




                 TERRY A. YONKERS
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 99-00319





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:

      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 technical sergeant effective and with a date  of  rank
of 1 May 1998.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency