RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-03306
            INDEX NUMBER:  107.00, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), First  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (1OLC), for the period 14 April 1995-15  August  1998,  and
that the award be considered in the promotion process for the  99E8
cycle to senior master sergeant (promotions effective  April  1999-
March 2000).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An MSM was written by his supervisor prior to  her  leaving  for  a
permanent change of station (PCS) move.  A copy was  given  to  him
before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) of 30 September
1998.  The DÉCOR 6 was dated 18 August 1998.  While on convalescent
leave in October 1998, a  military  personnel  flight  (MPF)  chief
stopped  the  decoration.   He  feels  betrayed  and  discriminated
against for becoming sick.  Favoritism was shown to another  senior
NCO who had applied for and had been approved for retirement.   The
decoration was written for him and the other  senior  NCO  covering
the same service periods and by the same supervisor.   He  believes
the  decision  was  calculated  to  deny  him  an  opportunity  for
promotion.  He missed promotion by 5.58 points.  The score required
for promotion was 645.32 and his  score  was  639.74.   Within  his
career field, there were two people  with  a  higher  score;  three
people with the same score; and 150 people with lower  scores.   It
is well-known that achieving an MSM (worth 5 points alone), awards,
(Professional  Military  Education  (PME),  college  education  and
senior rater indorsements  during  the  promotion  cycle,  are  all
strong determinants for promotion to E-8.

The applicant’s statement and the evidence he submitted in  support
of his appeal are at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data   System   (PDS)
indicates that the applicant was permanently  retired  from  active
duty, by reason of physical disability,  in  the  grade  of  master
sergeant, effective  19  June  1999.   He  received  a  compensable
disability rating of 20%.  His Total Active Service for  Retirement
was 21 years, 8 months, and 12 days.

The remaining 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 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 99E8  cycle  was
639.74, and the score required for selection  in  his  Control  Air
Force Specialty Code (CAFSC)  was  645.32.   The  applicant  missed
promotion by 5.58 points.  An MSM is  worth  5  weighted  promotion
points.  Promotions for this cycle were made on  23  February  1999
and announced on 10 March 1999.

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  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
30 September 1998.  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 policy was initiated on 28 February 1979,  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  this  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.   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.

If the applicant had been a selectee  during  the  99E8  cycle,  he
would have become ineligible for promotion on 21 April  1999,  when
the Secretary of the Air Force made the determination he was  unfit
for continued military service and directed  permanent  retirement.
Individuals become ineligible for promotion when the Air Force  has
made the determination the member  is  unfit  because  of  physical
disability (AFI  36-2502,  Airman  Promotion  Program,  Table  1.1,
Line J).  Ineligibility for promotion occurs on  the  date  of  the
Secretarial determination and is effective on that date, regardless
of the fact a member may actually retire  or  separate  on  a  date
subsequent to  the  determination.   The  applicant  would  not  be
entitled to be promoted to the grade of senior master  sergeant,  a
grade he did not hold prior  to  his  separation.   He  retired  on
19 June 1999, as a master sergeant.  Although  he  would  not  have
been eligible to assume the grade,  if  selected  while  on  active
duty, he would have been eligible to be placed on the retired  list
in the higher grade.  A complete copy  of  the  DPPPWB  evaluation,
with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on  21  April  2000,  for  review  and  response  within  30   days
(Exhibit D).  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.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The
applicant's complete submission was  thoroughly  reviewed  and  his
contentions were duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions
and  the  documentation  presented  in  support   of   his   appeal
sufficiently persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by
AFPC/DPPPWB.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to   the
contrary, we agree with the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPWB and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision  that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain  his  burden  of  establishing  that  he  has
suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.   Accordingly,  the
applicant’s requests for award of the MSM 1OLC and that  the  award
be considered in the promotion process for the 99E8  cycle  is  not
favorably considered.

4.  The documentation provided with this  case  was  sufficient  to
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved  and  a
personal appearance,  with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have
materially added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for
a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or  injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the  submission
of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this
application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 28 June 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
                 Mr. Laurence Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Mar 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Apr 00.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair