RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00646
            INDEX CODE:  100, 107

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) for  his  Air
Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC),  for
the period 18 Jan 92 - 30 Aug 94 be changed from 5 Dec 96 to  30 Aug
94.

2.    Apply three (3) points credit for the AFCM, 1OLC,  to  overall
promotion score for cycle 96E7  and  retroactively  promote  him  to
master sergeant for promotion cycle 96E7 and retire him in the grade
of master sergeant, effective 30 Apr  97,  with  all  back  pay  and
allowances.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would have received the AFCM upon his departure from Ramstein AB,
Germany, had he not been court-martialed.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)
was 20 Apr 77.

Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  profile  since  1983
follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             20 Oct 83                     9
             31 Mar 84                     9
             31 Mar 85                     8
             22 Sep 85                     8
              2 Aug 86                     9
             18 May 87                     9
             18 May 88                     9
             18 May 89                     9
             28 Oct 89                     9
              5 Sep 90                     5 (New rating system)
              5 Sep 91                     5
             22 May 92                     5
             22 May 93                     5
             22 May 94   Report Not Available for Administrative
                                        Reasons

Applicant was awarded the AFCM (Basic) for meritorious  service  for
the period 27 Jan 86 - 15 Feb 91, covering the first five  years  of
his tour in Germany.

Applicant was awarded the AFCM, 1OLC, for the period  18 Jan  92  to
30 Aug  94  for  meritorious  service.   The  certificate  for   the
applicant’s AFCM, 1OLC, was signed on 25 Aug 97 and the orders  were
published on 21 Jan 98, with an RDP date of 5 Dec 96.

On 21 Dec 93, the  applicant  was  decertified  from  the  Personnel
Reliability Program (PRP) for:  1.  Wrongful  attempt  to  influence
the testimony of a witness before a court-martial case,  obstructing
justice, under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
and, 2:  Indecent acts with a child, for  personal  pleasure,  under
Article 134, UCMJ.

On 27 Dec 93, the commander found and  concluded  that  the  reasons
cited for decertification warranted permanent decertification.

On 11 Aug 94, a general court-martial was arraigned at  Ramstein  AB
for the following offenses:

            On or  about  31 Aug  88  to  on  or  about  31 Mar  92,
applicant committed indecent acts upon the body of a female under 16
years of age by rubbing her vagina and buttocks with his hands, with
intent to gratify the sexual desires of  the  applicant.   Applicant
pled not guilty and was found not guilty.

            On or about 1 Oct 93 and on or about 8 Oct 93, applicant
wrongfully  endeavored  to  impede   a   trial   by   court-martial,
specifically, by communicating to the mother of the child  under  16
years of age, a threat that his attorneys would  cremate  the  child
and ruin the mother’s creditability and  that  the  brother  of  the
child would never work as an engineer unless the child would  refuse
to testify at trial.  Applicant pled not guilty to the  charges  and
was found guilty.  The sentence  was  adjudged  on  11 Apr  94,  per
General Court-Martial Order No. XX,  and  the  sentence  was  a  bad
conduct discharge and reduction from the grade of technical sergeant
to the grade of senior airman.

On 21 Feb 96, the United States Air Force Court of Criminal  Appeals
reviewed the sentence adjudged on 11 Apr 94.   After  reviewing  the
entire record of trial, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that
the applicant was denied effective assistance of counsel  and  after
exercising their authority under Article 66(c), UCMJ, the  Court  of
Criminal Appeals set aside the conviction as a  matter  of  law  and
ordered that the charges be dismissed.

On 8 Apr 96, General Court-Martial Order No.  XX  was  issued  which
indicated the findings of guilty and  the  sentence  promulgated  by
General Court-Martial Order No. XX were set aside  effective  21 Feb
96 and the  charge  was  dismissed.   All  rights,  privileges,  and
property of which the  applicant  was  deprived  by  virtue  of  the
findings of guilty and the sentence so set aside would be restored.

On 1 May 97, the applicant retired under the provisions of  AFI  36-
3203 (Voluntary Retirement:  Maximum Service or Time-In-Grade)  with
an honorable characterization of service in the grade  of  technical
sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 91.   He
was credited with 20 years and 11 days of active service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch,  AFPC/DPPPR,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant’s (then) supervisor did
not give a date as to when he  recommended  the  applicant  for  the
AFCM,  1OLC,  or  whether  or  not  a  written  recommendation   was
submitted.  The certificate for  the  applicant’s  AFCM,  1OLC,  was
signed on 25 Aug 97 and the orders were not published  until  21 Jan
98, with an RDP date of 5 Dec 96.  The applicant did not provide any
documentation from the original recommendation  package.   It  would
seem that, with the applicant’s history prior to the general  court-
martial, he would have been recommended for, and received, the AFCM,
1OLC, as an end of tour decoration.  However, because of the  court-
martial, DPPPR cannot ascertain when his tour would have  (normally)
ended.  If his chain of command decided not to recommend  him  until
the end of another tour, the close-out date would have  been  on  or
about Feb or Mar 96, but no earlier.  Therefore, an RDP  dated  1996
could be considered reasonable.  DPPPR recommends disapproval of the
applicant’s request to change the RDP date for his AFCM,  1OLC,  for
the period 18 Jan 92 - 30 Aug 94 from 5 Dec 96 to 30 Aug 94.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant’s total promotion score
for the 96E7 cycle was 274.12 and the score required  for  selection
in his Control Air Force Specialty  Code  (CAFSC)  was  274.70.   He
missed promotion selection by .58 point.  An  AFCM  is  worth  three
weighted promotion points.  The  three  points  this  decoration  is
worth would make the applicant a selectee to master sergeant  during
cycle 96E7.  Promotions for this cycle were effective Aug  96 -  Jul
97.  If  selected  during  this  cycle,  the  applicant  would  have
received Promotion Sequence Number (PSN)  1765.9  which  would  have
been effective and with a DOR of 1 Dec 96.

DPPPWB further 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 (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 date  of  the  DECOR-6,  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 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 Dec 95.  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.   This  decoration  does  not  meet  the
criteria for promotion credit during the 96E7 cycle because the  RDP
date is 5 Dec 96, after selections were made on 25 May  96  for  the
96E7 cycle.  This policy was initiated on 28 Feb 79 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.  In accordance with 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.

DPPPWB states  that  documentation  in  the  applicant’s  case  file
reflects the decoration was  not  officially  placed  into  military
channels  until  after  selections   for   the   96E7   cycle   were
accomplished.  The orders are dated 21 Jan 98, with an RDP  date  of
5 Dec 96, which  was  after  promotions  for  the  96E7  cycle  were
completed (25 May 96) and announced (12 Jun 96).   While  DPPPWB  is
acutely  aware  of  the  impact  this  recommendation  had  on   the
applicant’s career, there is no tangible evidence the decoration was
placed into official channels before selections for the  96E7  cycle
were made and 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.
Based on the rationale provided, DPPPWB recommends denial.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  provided  a  four-
page response (see 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 error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board
believes that circumstances beyond the applicant’s  control  prevented
the award of the AFCM, 1OLC, from being awarded  as  an  end  of  tour
decoration.  In this respect, applicant was  found  guilty  by  court-
martial of indecent acts with a minor and for endeavoring to impede  a
trial by court-martial by communicating a threat to the mother of  the
minor child.  The charges were later dismissed.  While we note that it
cannot be determined when his end of tour would have occurred  because
of his court-martial, it  appears  that  because  of  the  applicant’s
outstanding record prior to the  court-martial,  he  would  have  been
recommended for  the  AFCM,  1OLC,  as  an  end  of  tour  decoration.
However,  because  of  the  court-martial,  it  is  conceivable   that
applicant’s supervisor would not formally recommend applicant  for  an
award  given  the  circumstances  of   a   court-martial   conviction.
Furthermore, we note  the  statement  provided  from  the  applicant’s
former supervisor who indicated that he recommended the applicant  for
award of the AFCM based on his  overall  performance  and  would  have
recommended the applicant for the AFCM, 1OLC,  had  he  not  been  the
subject  of  a  court-martial  at  Ramstein  AB.   In  view  of  these
statements and the unusual circumstances of this  case,  and  with  no
reason to question the supervisor’s veracity regarding  the  award  of
the AFCM, 1OLC, a majority of the Board believes this situation should
be resolved in favor of the applicant.  Therefore, the Board  majority
recommends applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.    The RDP for the AFCM, 1OLC, for the period 18 Jan 92  to
30 Aug 94 was prepared on 30 Aug 94 versus 5 Dec 96.

      b.    He was promoted to the grade of master  sergeant  (E-7),
effective, and with a DOR of 30 Apr 97 and any service commitment he
incurred due to his promotion was waived by competent authority.

      c.    On 1 May 97, he retired for length  of  service  in  the
grade of master sergeant, rather than technical sergeant.

The following members of the Board considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 14 March 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Jay Jordan, Member
              Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended granting the relief sought
in  this  application.   Mr.  Willmeth  voted  to  deny  applicant’s
requests  and  submits  a  minority  report  which  is  attached  at
Exhibit G.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 23 Apr 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 May 99, w/atch.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 20 Jun 99.
     Exhibit G.  Minority Report.


                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair

INDEX CODE:  100, 107

AFBCMR 99-00646




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 , be corrected to show that:

            a.   The Recommendation for  Decoration  Printout  (RDP)
for the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), First Oak Leaf  Cluster
(1OLC), for  the  period  18 January  1992  to  30 August  1994  was
prepared on 30 August 1994 versus 5 December 1996.

            b.   He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-
7), effective, and with a date of rank  of  30 April  1997  and  any
service commitment he incurred due to his promotion  was  waived  by
competent authority.

            c.   On 1 May 1997, he retired for length of service  in
the grade of master sergeant, rather than technical sergeant (E-6).






                                                           JOE    G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                          Air  Force
Review Boards Agency