RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00929
            INDEX CODES:  107.00, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The closeout date for award of the Meritorious  Service  Medal  (MSM),
Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), be changed from 15 Sep 98  to  31  Jul
98.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The decoration should have closed out prior to 31 Jul 98 based on  his
assignment  reporting  date  of  31  Jul  98.   His  former  commander
intentionally delayed the High Year of Tenure (HYT) letter, which  was
required for assignment approval, and did not allow sufficient time to
accomplish outprocessing to meet the 31 Jul 98 reporting  date.   This
resulted in a new reporting date of  30 Sep 98  and  changed  the  MSM
closeout date.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
statements  from  the  deputy  commander  and  command  chief   master
sergeant, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
senior master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade  on  1  Jan
95.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 5 Jun 73.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air
Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these  facts  in  this
Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application
and recommended denial.  DPPPR noted  that  the  applicant  served  at
McGuire AFB during the period 10 Nov 95 to  15 Sep  98.   He  received
reassignment orders, with a reporting date of not later  than  31  Jul
98.  However, his unit at McGuire could not release him at that  time,
due to mission requirements.  He agreed to a later reporting date,  as
did Ramstein Air Base.  His new “Report Not Later Than”  date  was  30
Sep 98.

According to DPPPR, the  decoration  package  was  processed  entirely
within the criteria set forth in the governing Air Force  instruction.
The written recommendation was submitted into official channels within
the two-year time limit, and the decoration awarded within the  three-
year time limit.  His departure date of 15 Sep 98 was correctly  used,
as he was still assigned to the unit at McGuire at that time.

DPPPR indicated that there is no valid reason to make any  changes  to
the applicant’s MSM (2OLC), as it  covers  the  period  which  he  was
assigned to McGuire AFB.  The beginning  and  ending  dates  coincided
with his arrival and actual departure dates at McGuire AFB.  The  fact
that he originally had an earlier departure date is immaterial, as  it
was  changed  to  a  later  date.   The  DÉCOR-6  (Recommendation  for
Decoration Printout (RDP)),  ordered  25 Jul 98,  gave  the  inclusive
dates of the decoration as 10 Nov 95 to 15 Sep 98.

A complete copy of the DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPPWB  noted  that
the applicant’s total promotion score for the 98E9 cycle  was  660.35,
and the score required for selection in  his  Chief  Enlisted  Manager
(CEM) code was 663.05.  The applicant missed  promotion  selection  by
2.70 points.  Promotions for this cycle were effective Jan 99-Dec 99.

According  to  DPPPWB,  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 closeout date of the decoration  must  be  on  or
before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the  date  of
the DÉCOR-6 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 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  Jul  98.   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.

DPPPWB indicated that while they are acutely aware of the  impact  the
recommendation to deny the applicant’s request has on his career,  the
decoration covered the period that  coincided  with  his  arrival  and
actual departure dates.  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.
If the closeout date is changed it would not automatically entitle him
to be supplementally considered for any previous promotion  cycles  as
it was not a matter of record.   However,  if  the  Board  grants  the
request, it could  direct  supplemental  promotion  consideration  for
cycle 98E9.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that it was not his desire to
delay the assignment.  Also, the unit commander never made any written
request to delay the assignment, and he had every opportunity to do so
despite  his  disagreement.   USAFE  and  AFPC  would  not  delay  the
assignment and the commander  deliberately  would  not  sign  the  HYT
letter to force a delay.  The result is that he is being punished  for
the commander’s error in judgment.  Based on  his  later  conversation
with the commander, he discovered that he would not have  delayed  the
HYT request letter had he been fully aware of the  adverse  impact  on
his career.  Once he became aware of the  consequences,  he  tried  to
make amends  for  his  poor  judgment,  as  evidenced  by  his  letter
contained in the application.  In his case, he believes that there  is
evidence that the deliberate action of  a  commander  to,  in  effect,
“beat the system” had an adverse affect on his career.   An  injustice
occurred, and it needs to be corrected.  The obvious action to correct
such an injustice would be to approve his appeal.

Applicant’s complete response is 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable injustice.  We note that the applicant  received
a PSC assignment with a reporting date of 31 Jul 98.  However, he  was
required to apply for  a  two-year  extension  of  his  HYT  prior  to
approval of the assignment.  After a review of the available evidence,
it appears that the applicant’s commander  purposely  delayed  signing
the HYT letter so that the applicant would not PCS prior to 31 Jul 98.
 In this respect, we note that the commander indicated that  he  could
not afford to permit the applicant’s departure prior to 31 Jul 98  due
to mission requirements.  He  further  stated  that  he  informed  the
applicant that his approval of the HYT extension would not be  granted
until he gained assurance that his signing of the HYT letter would not
cause a PCS move prior to 31 Jul 98.  The applicant has indicated that
it was not his desire that the assignment be delayed, and there is  no
evidence that the assignment approving authority  would  have  delayed
the assignment had the commander made  a  formal  request  to  do  so.
Thus, it seems that the commander manipulated a delay by  not  signing
the letter before the 31 Jul 98 reporting  date.   Had  the  applicant
departed on his original date,  the  MSM  (2OLC)  would  have  had  an
earlier closeout date and certainly would have  met  the  requirements
for inclusion in the promotion process for cycle 98E9.  In view of the
above, and to remove the possibility of  an  injustice,  we  recommend
that the closeout date of the MSM (2OLC) be changed from 15 Sep 98  to
31 Jul 98,  and  that  he  be  given  supplemental  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the closeout date for
award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Second Oak Leaf  Cluster
(2OLC), was 31 Jul 98, rather than 15 Sep 98.

It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant  for
cycle 98E9, with inclusion of the MSM (2OLC).

If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and  unrelated
to the issues involved in this application that  would  have  rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information  will  be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after  such  promotion  the
records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the  higher
grade on the date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion
and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits  of  such
grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 16 Nov 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 26 Apr 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 5 May 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Jun 99.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair