RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01133
                 INDEX CODE:  107

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The close-out date of the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM)
as reflects 31 December 1990, be changed to reflect 1 March 1989.

2.  The DMSM, with the close-out date of 1 March 1989,  be  considered
in the promotion process for the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-
6) and that he be automatically promoted to the grade of master (MSgt)
(E-7) and retired in that grade.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was nominated for  the  DMSM  in  November  1988.   The  award  was
approved up to the level of his NATO Commander (Army),  and  forwarded
to the Senior U. S. Air Force (USAF) Officer for  approval.   However,
before the Senior USAF  Officer  could  review  the  DMSM  package,  a
noncommissioned officer  (NCO),  not  associated  with  this  package,
removed  it  from  the  Senior  USAF  Officer’s  office  without   his
(officer’s) knowledge.  The nominating supervisor retired from the Air
Force and did not become aware that the  DMSM  was  filed  away  until
February 1996.  The  DMSM  package  was  resubmitted  in  1996-97  and
approved in November 1997.  Instead of the original close-out date  of
December 1988, a close-out date of December 1990 was used instead.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy  of  the  original
recommendation for the award of the DMSM; a  copy  of  his  retirement
orders; a copy of the certificate and citation of the DMSM; a copy  of
the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty;
and a copy of DD Form 215, reflecting the correction to  the  DD  Form
214 by adding  the  DMSM  award  and  Military  Outstanding  Volunteer
Service Medal.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 September 1993 for
a period of four (4) years in the grade of technical sergeant.

Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR), for the period  beginning
10 January 1986, reflects that he was assigned to  AFELM  NATO/AFNORTH
in Kolsas, Norway.  A subsequent APR and  three  Enlisted  Performance
Reports  (EPRs)  reflect  the  same  assignment  with  the  fifth  EPR
reflecting a close-out date of 9 January 1991.   He  was  subsequently
assigned to Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB), Massachusetts.  (TAB 1)

On 1 November 1988, a recommendation for  the  award  of  the  Defense
Meritorious Service Medal (Basic) was initiated for the period 2 March
1986 to 1 March 1989 with a basis for recommendation  for  outstanding
service.  However, there is no indication  that  the  award  was  ever
approved.

Applicant was awarded the Joint Service Commendation Medal  First  Oak
Leaf Cluster (JSCM 1OLC) for the period 2 March  1986  to  31 December
1990 for meritorious service while  assigned  to  AFELM  NATO/AFNORTH,
Kolsas, Norway.  (TAB 2)

Applicant was considered for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant (E-6) by cycle 91A6 (promotions effective August  1990  -July
1991).  The total weighted promotion score required for  selection  in
the applicant’s Air Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  was  337.28.   The
applicant’s total weighted promotion score was 336.28.   The  DMSM  is
worth 5  points  in  the  Weighted  Airman  Promotion  System  (WAPS);
however, since this  award  was  presented  after  the  applicant  was
retired,  the  decoration  would  not  have  been  considered  in  the
promotion process by cycle 91A6.

Applicant was considered for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant (E-6), and selected, by the 92A6 promotion cycle with a  date
of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 October 1991.  (TAB 3).

On 11 July 1995, applicant requested voluntary early retirement to  be
effective 1 January 1996.  His request was approved on  21 July  1995.
(TAB 4)

On 31 December 1995, applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  and
honorably retired under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Temporary Early
Retirement Authority (TERA) effective 1 January 1996, in the grade  of
technical sergeant (E-6).  He served 17 years, 9 months and 29 days of
active duty.

Subsequent to  the  applicant’s  retirement  from  the  Air  Force  on
1 January 1996, he was awarded the Defense Meritorious  Service  Medal
(DMSM)  for  the  period  2  March  1986  to  31  December  1990,  for
meritorious service, per Permanent  Orders  310-01,  dated  6 November
1997.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs Branch, Promotions, Evaluation &  Recognition
Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, states that the citation for  the  DMSM  was
awarded for “exceptionally meritorious service while assigned  to  the
Special Handling Detachment---at Headquarters,  AFNORTH,”  and  covers
the entire period that  the  applicant  was  in  Norway,  not  just  a
portion.  Applicant’s EPRs reflect assignment  to  AFELM  NATO/AFNORTH
(in Norway) during this entire period.  Therefore, when  the  original
recommendation package was removed from  the  chain  of  command,  the
resubmission was updated to include his entire tour of duty,  and  the
DMSM was awarded as an “end-of-tour” decoration.

It is normal practice for  an  individual  to  finish  a  tour  before
receiving such a decoration, not when the  supervisor  leaves.   Since
the package was resubmitted, the  decoration  covers  the  applicant’s
entire tour in Norway, as it should.  To change the close-out date  of
the decoration in  order  to  award  the  applicant  promotion  points
earlier in his career is totally in contradiction of  the  awards  and
decorations program  and  would  degrade  the  system  and  all  other
decorations to other individuals.  Recommend the  applicant’s  request
be denied.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPPWB, states 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-out 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.   In  the  case  of
decorations  initiated  by  agencies  other  than  normal  Air   Force
channels, the date the decoration is initiated is used in lieu of  the
RDP.  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  as  well  as  which
performance reports and decorations will  be  used  in  the  promotion
consideration.

As evidenced by the special order for the DMSM, this  decoration  does
not meet the criteria for promotion credit because the decoration  was
not initiated until 1996—after the member retired  from  active  duty.
This decoration policy was  initiated  28 February  1979  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 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.  Although the applicant has requested  the  close-out
date  be  changed,  this  change  would  still  not  entitle  him   to
supplemental promotion consideration.

If the decoration had been approved when it was initially submitted, 1
Nov 88, he would have been promoted to  TSgt  (provided  he  had  been
recommended by his commander and was otherwise  eligible)  during  the
91A6 cycle and would have assumed the grade  1  January  1991  vice  1
October 1991.   Based  on  his  DOR  to  TSgt,  he  was  eligible  for
consideration to MSgt during the 95A7 cycle (promotions effective  Aug
94-Jul 95) and 95E7 (promotions effective Aug 95-Jul 96) prior to  his
retirement 1 Jan 96.  He missed promotion selection  by  46.72  points
for the 95A7 cycle and 47.97 points for the 95E7 cycle.  Neither the 5
additional points for the decoration, if it had been  considered,  nor
the  4.50  additional  points  for  time-in-grade  (TIG)  would   have
increased his total score sufficiently to have become a  selectee  for
either of his two considerations to MSgt.

If his DOR to TSgt had been 1 Jan 91 he would have been  eligible  for
consideration to MSgt one cycle earlier (94A7) than the first cycle he
was considered.  His total points for this cycle (minus the  Promotion
Fitness Examination (PFE) and Specialty Knowledge  Test  (SKT)  scores
would have been 191.68.  This score includes the additional  5  points
for the decoration in question and TIG points based on DOR to TSgt  of
1 Jan 91.  The PFE and SKT for the 94A7 cycle have been  destroyed  in
accordance with applicable directives.  As testing begins for the next
cycle, test booklets for the previous cycle are destroyed as  obsolete
tests are not administered.   However,  if  you  subtract  the  191.68
points from the 335.76 cutoff score  required  for  selection  in  the
applicants AFSC for the 94A7 cycle, he would have  needed  a  combined
test score of 144.08 or an average of 72.04 for each test (PFE & SKT).
 This is considerably higher than the scores for the two cycles he was
considered for MSgt.  Based on his testing history, it is unlikely  he
would have received a total test score of 144.08 or average  of  72.04
required to be selected.

Applicant also states that the DMSM could  have  warranted  an  almost
automatic Stripes for Exceptional Performers (STEP) promotion to TSgt.
 However, specific procedures, and the level at which  the  selections
can be made, are determined by each MAJCOM or FOA.  The  total  number
of STEP promotions is approximately 1.5  percent  of  the  anticipated
promotions to the grades of  SSgt  through  MSgt  and  competition  is
extremely keen.  The quota is established by the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force  and  divided  equitably  among  commanders.   There  is  no
guarantee the applicant would have been selected.

There is no conclusive evidence the decoration was  resubmitted  until
after his retirement on 1 January 1996.  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.  They recommend the application be denied.

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


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
6 July 1998 for review  and  response.   Applicant  responded  to  the
evaluations and states, in part, that his response to the  evaluations
should show that the DMSM decoration package was stolen and under  the
circumstances he should have been promoted to  technical  sergeant  in
1989 and not January 1991.  Applicant  states  that  he  finished  his
first tour of duty from 1986 to 1989 and from 1989 to 1991 he  was  on
his second tour of duty.  Applicant states that the statement that  he
was put in for the decoration because his supervisor was retiring from
the Air Force is incorrect.  His  supervisor  retired  on  very  short
notice in 1990.  Applicant states that under different  circumstances,
he would have stayed until at least 20 years.  The fact is that he has
been awarded a medal that was stolen from an officer’s desk and  later
awarded that medal without realizing the benefits that go  along  with
it.

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the applicant should be automatically promoted  to  the
grade of master sergeant (E-7) and retired in that grade.   As  stated
by AFPC/DPPPWB, had the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM)  been
approved when it was initially submitted,  the  applicant  would  have
been promoted to technical sergeant (provided he had been  recommended
and was otherwise eligible) by the 91A6 cycle with a date of  rank  of
1 January 1991 vice 1 October 1991.  He would have then been  eligible
for  promotion  to  master  sergeant  by  the  94A7  promotion  cycle.
However, the scores for cycle 94A7 have been destroyed.  The applicant
was promoted to technical sergeant by the 92A6 cycle  which  made  him
eligible for promotion consideration to master sergeant  by  the  95A7
and 95E7 promotion cycles.  However, his total scores  for  these  two
cycles were well below the cutoff scores even with the 5 points  added
for the DMSM.   AFPC/DPPPWB  stated  that  based  on  the  applicant’s
testing history for the two cycles 95A7 and 95E7, it is unlikely  that
he would have received a total score required to be  selected  by  the
94A7 cycle.  We agree with AFPC/DPPPWB.  The applicant  also  contends
that had the DMSM been approved at  the  time  that  he  was  a  staff
sergeant, it could have warranted  an  almost  automatic  Stripes  for
Exceptional  Performers  (STEP)  promotion  to   technical   sergeant.
However, this appears to be speculation on the part of  the  applicant
and there is no evidence to support  his  contention.   Therefore,  we
find no basis upon which to recommend that he be arbitrarily  promoted
to the grade of master sergeant.

4.  With regard to the applicant’s request  to  change  the  close-out
date on the award of the DMSM, we note that the  award  was  initially
recommended on 1 November 1988 for the period 2 March 1986 to 1  March
1989.  The applicant states that before a Senior  USAF  Officer  could
review the DMSM package, a noncommissioned officer (NCO)  removed  the
package from the officer’s desk.  However, the  applicant  submits  no
evidence to support his allegation.  Although we believe that a change
to the close-out date of the DMSM would alleviate any injustice to the
applicant, he should be aware that the AFBCMR can only review requests
involving Air Force awards and decorations and any  Joint  or  Defense
decoration  must  be  reviewed  by  the  Department  of  Defense.   We
therefore recommend that the applicant’s records be forwarded  to  the
Department of Defense with a recommendation to  change  the  close-out
date of the DMSM.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be forwarded to the Department of Defense  with
a recommendation that the close-out date of  the  Defense  Meritorious
Service Medal (DMSM) be changed to 1 March 1989 vice 31 December 1990.


Furthermore, the  recommendation  of  the  Department  of  Defense  be
forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records at the earliest practicable date so  that  all  necessary  and
appropriate actions may be completed.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
              Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 98.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 12 Jun 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Jun 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Jul 98.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 7 Jul 98.



                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair

INDEX CODE;  107

AFBCMR 98-01133




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
recommended that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT  , be forwarded to the Department of
Defense with a recommendation that the close-out date of the Defense
Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) be changed to 1 March 1989 vice 31
December 1990.

      It is further recommended that the recommendation of the
Department of Defense be forwarded to the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so
that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed.








   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency