RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00886
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster  (2OLC),
for the period 15 Nov 95 - 30 Mar 96, be included  for  supplemental
promotion consideration for cycle 96E5 to staff sergeant (promotions
effective Sep 96 - Aug 97).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He met the requirement to be awarded the AAM, 2OLC, after completing
his 20th mission on 30 Mar 96.  His supervisor,  during  this  time,
withheld his name from the decoration package because he  failed  to
achieve Category III status which was not  required  to  be  awarded
this medal.  He missed promotion to  staff  sergeant  by  less  than
three points during the 1996 promotion cycle.  The  AAM  would  have
given him the required points for promotion.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted a  statement  from
his commander, a  copy  of  Special  Order  GE-023,  copies  of  his
Individual Flight Time Records,  a  copy  of  a  message  requesting
supplemental promotion  consideration,  and  a  copy  of  a  message
denying his request.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)
is 18 Sep 89.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in
the grade of senior airman, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR)
of 18 Mar 92.

The Air Force indicated that the applicant was assigned to the 390th
Intelligence Squadron (IS) in Japan from 21 Feb 95 - 17 Nov 98.  The
390th IS commander stated the applicant completed 20 mission flights
as of 1 May 95 and received the basic AAM.   As  of  13 Nov  95,  he
completed another 20 missions and received the AAM with One Oak Leaf
Cluster  (1OLC).   Between  15 Nov  95 -  5 Jun  96,  the  applicant
completed 28 missions but was not awarded the AAM, 2OLC, because  he
failed his Category III tests and was reassigned to ground duties.

The applicant was awarded the AAM, 2OLC, for the period 15 Nov  95 -
30 Mar 96, effective 10 Mar 98.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch,  AFPC/DPPPR,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that although no  documentation  has  been
provided showing the reason for the delay in awarding the AAM, 2OLC,
and  no  copy  of  the  recommendation  package  was  provided,  the
decoration  was  processed  and  awarded  within  the  time   limits
required.  Therefore,  there  are  no  recommended  changes  to  the
applicant’s AAM, 2OLC.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this
application and indicated that the applicant’s total promotion score
for the 96E5 cycle is reflected as 284.83 and the score required for
selection in his  Control  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (CAFSC)  was
287.74.  He missed promotion selection by 2.91 points.   An  AAM  is
worth three weighted promotion points.  This decoration  would  make
him a selectee  to  staff  sergeant  during  cycle  96E5  pending  a
favorable data verification and the recommendation of his commander.
 Promotions for this cycle were made on 19 Jul 96 and  announced  on
31 Jul 96.

DPPPWB further 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 (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,
Recommendation for Decoration Printout (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 (CED) 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 Mar 96.  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.

The applicant’s decoration does not meet the criteria for  promotion
credit during the 96E5 cycle because the  decoration  recommendation
was not placed into official channels until after selections for the
96E5 cycle were made.   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 further stated that documentation included in the applicant’s
case file reflects the decoration  recommendation  package  was  not
officially placed into military channels until after selections  for
the 96E5 cycle were accomplished.  The orders are dated  13 May  98,
with an RDP date of 10 Mar 98, which was after  promotions  for  the
96E5 cycle were completed (19 Jul 96)  and  announced  (31 Jul  96).
While DPPPWB is acutely aware of the impact this recommendation  has
on the  applicant’s  career,  there  is  no  tangible  evidence  the
decoration was placed into official channels before  selections  for
the 96E5 cycle were made and to approve his  request  would  not  be
fair or equitable to many others in  the  same  situation  who  also
missed promotion selection by a narrow margin and are not  permitted
to have an “after  the  fact”  decoration  count  in  the  promotion
process.  The applicant’s request to have the decoration included in
the promotion process for this cycle as an exception to  policy  was
disapproved by the Promotion Management Section at AFPC  and  DPPPWB
concurs with their decision.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  applicant  on
10 May 99 for review and response.  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.  It appears  that  the
applicant was not awarded the AAM, 2OLC, because of his  failure  to
become a Category III Airborne Maintenance  Technician  (AMT)  which
was an  internal  policy  of  his  branch.   However,  we  note  the
statement provided by the applicant’s supervisor who indicated  that
the internal policy was never brought to his (supervisor)  attention
but if it had, it would have been overruled.  The supervisor  stated
that whether or not  applicant  attained  Category  III  status  had
nothing to do with the fact that he flew  28  missions  as  a  fully
qualified Category III AMT.   He  also  stated  that  the  applicant
performed the required number of flights  to  be  awarded  the  2OLC
prior to the PECD and he was singled out because of his  failure  to
attain Category  III  status.   After  noting  these  statements,  a
majority of the Board believes that the RDP date should  be  changed
as indicated below and the applicant provided supplemental promotion
consideration to the grade of staff sergeant, with inclusion of  the
AAM, 2OLC.  The applicant  will  then  receive  fair  and  equitable
consideration based on an accurate record.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the  RDP  date  for
the AAM, 2OLC, for the period 15 Nov 95 – 30 Mar 96, was prepared on
18 Jul 96.

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 96E5.

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  qualification  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 effective and with a date of rank as 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 18 April 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
              Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

By a majority vote, the Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Mr. Anderson voted to  deny  applicant’s  request  but
does  not  desire  to  submit  a  minority  report.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 Apr 99.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 Apr 99, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 00.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair

INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.01

AFBCMR 99-00886




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 the Recommendation for
Decoration Printout (RDP) date for the Aerial Achievement Medal
(AAM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), for the period 15 November
1995 – 30 March 1996, was prepared on 18 July 1996.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all
appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 96E5.

      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 qualification 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 effective and with a date of rank as
established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to
all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.





                                                         JOE G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                         Air Force
Review Boards Agency