RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02517

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force Achievement Medal with Second Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AFAM,
2OLC) dated 31 December 1999, awarded for the period      12  February
1998 to 15 April 1998, be considered  in  the  promotion  process  for
cycle 99E6 (TSgt).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFAM medal was not placed in his  records  by  the  standard  time
allotted due to the unit’s extremely high operations tempo.  Applicant
has submitted letters of support and recommendation from  his  command
chain.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of SSgt (E-5).

Promotion selections for cycle 99E6 were made on  17  May  1999.   The
total  weighted  promotion  score  required  for  selection   in   the
applicant’s  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  was   335.95.    The
applicant’s total weighted promotion score was 335.62.

The applicant was on temporary  duty  (TDY)  to  Ali  Al  Salem  Base,
Kuwait, for participation in  Operation  Desert  Thunder,  during  the
period 12 February 1998 to 15 April 1998.  The recommendation  package
was initiated on 2 June 1999, approved on 31  December  1999  and  the
order published on 30 March 2000.  The AFAM is worth one point in  the
computation of a member’s total promotion score.   The  applicant  was
selected for promotion to TSgt by cycle 00E6, sequence number 6339.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Recognition  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPR,  reviewed  the
applicant’s request and made no  recommendation.   The  recommendation
package was submitted into official channels within the two-year  time
limit, and awarded within the three-year time limit;  therefore,  this
is no technical error regarding this decoration.

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

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,   reviewed   the
applicant’s  request  recommending  denial  based  on  the   rationale
provided.  The documentation included in  the  applicant’s  case  file
reflects a Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) dated  2  June
1999 and is documented on the Special  Order  G-XXX,  dated  30  March
2000.  The recommendation package for the  subject  AFAM  was  a  late
submission due to  the  unit’s  extremely  high  operations  tempo  as
indicated in the letter dated 22 June 2000 that provided  for  support
of his request.  However, there is no indication the award was  placed
in official channels before selections for the 99E6 cycle were made.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to
applicant on 3 November 2000 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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record  and   noting   the   applicant's
contentions, the majority of the  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the
contested AFAM should be considered in the promotion process for cycle
99E6.  In this respect,  the  Board  majority  notes  that  since  the
decoration was not submitted until after selections  for  cycle  99E6,
the AFAM does not meet the criteria  for  consideration  during  cycle
99E6.  While the applicant has provided a statement from the  squadron
chief master sergeant, and indorsed by both  the  squadron  and  group
commanders, indicating that the award package was  prepared  in  April
1998 but was not processed due to the unit’s  high  operations  tempo,
there  is  no  evidence  that  the   commanders   intended   for   the
recommendation to be placed in official channels prior  to  selections
for cycle 99E6.  Further, in accordance with  Air  Force  policy,  the
AFAM  was  processed  and  awarded  within  the  time  limit  allowed.
Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, the
Board majority finds no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 5 March 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Kathy L.Boockholdt, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Margaret A. Zook, Member
                 Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member

A majority of the Board voted to  deny  the  application.          Mr.
Wenker voted to correct the records but does  not  wish  to  submit  a
Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Sept 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 6 Oct 00, w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 11 Oct 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Nov 00, w/atchs.







      KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
      Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                       CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case
and do not agree with the majority members of the panel that the
applicant’s request should be denied.

      The majority of the panel is not convinced that the contested
Air Force Achievement Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM, 2OLC)
should be considered in the promotion process for cycle 99E 6 (TSgt).
They believe that there is no evidence that the commanders intended
for the recommendation to be placed in official channels prior to the
selections for cycle 99E-6 (TSgt).

      I note, however, that the admission from squadron chief master
sergeant and the endorsements by both the squadron and group
commanders indicating that the award package was intended for
placement in official channels prior to the selections for cycle 99E-
6.  This late submission of the award package was due solely to the
unit’s high operations tempo.  Having no basis to question the
integrity of the rating chain, I do not believe that the applicant
should be deprived of promotion on an earlier date because of factors
over which he had no control.  Therefore, it is my decision that the
applicant’s record be corrected to show that the Recommendation for
Decoration Printout (RDP) for the award of the Air Force Achievement
Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM, 2OLC), for the period 12
February 1998 to 15 April 1998, was prepared on 29 April 1998 and
considered in the promotion process for cycle 99E6.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR 00-02517




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  Recommendation
for Decoration Printout (RDP) for award of the Air Force Achievement  Medal,
Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC) for the period 12 February 1998 to  15  April
1998, was prepared on 29 April 1998, rather than 2 June 1999.

              It is  further  directed  that  he  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 99E6.

               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 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.







      JOE G. LINEBERGER
      Director
      Air Force Review Boards Agency