RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01548
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), fourth oak leaf cluster  (4OLC)  for
the period 21 Aug 98 through 22 Dec 98, be  considered  in  cycle  00E6  for
promotion to technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After he discovered that his recommendation for  decoration  printout  (RDP)
from his deployment to Istres AB, France from 21 Aug 98 to  22  Dec  98  was
destroyed, he discussed the matter with his supervisor.  On  27 Jun 99,  his
supervisor   requested   another   RDP   and   forwarded   the    decoration
recommendation for review.  The package was not forwarded to  his  commander
until mid-December.  His commander, after observing the past due  decoration
suspense, requested another RDP and forwarded the package  to  the  approval
authority.  The  package  was  forwarded  to  the  Headquarters  Contracting
Division for review and returned with a recommendation for  disapproval  and
the package was subsequently destroyed by his unit orderly  room  personnel.
He  later  learned  that  the  Headquarters  Contracting  Division  had   no
authority to disapprove the decoration but only make a  recommendation.   It
should have been sent over to the HQ USAFE  Logistics  Group  Commander  for
approval/disapproval.   The  original  RDP  reappeared  in  May  2000.    He
contacted his deployed commander, who had since retired,  and  obtained  his
signature and recommendation for the decoration in June 2000.   He  believes
that he met all the criteria for timely award of this decoration.  Once  the
commander requested the new RDP and endorsed it, the original  RDP  remained
in official channels because it was never disapproved or cancelled,  it  was
just set-aside.

In  support  of   his   request   applicant   provided   copies   of   email
communications, documents  associated  with  his  request  for  supplemental
promotion consideration, his RDP,  his  AFAM,  his  AFAM  orders,  documents
associated with the AFAM recommendation package, extracts from AFI  36-2803,
Air Force Awards and  Decoration  Program;  AFI  36-2502,  Airman  Promotion
Program; and the 86 Airlift Wing Awards and Decorations Guide; and,  his  AF
Form  77,  Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet.   His  complete  submission   is
appended at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from  the  personnel  data  system  reflects  that  applicant
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  19  Oct  82.
He has continually served on active duty, entering his last enlistment on  3
Jan 00.  He has been  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of  rank  of  1
Aug 01.

Additional relevant facts pertaining to  this  application,  extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no  need  to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

Examiner’s note:  Applicant  was  a  selectee  for  promotion  in  the  01E6
promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPR,  reviewed  applicant’s
request and recommends denial.  DPPPR states that although it  appears  that
many technical errors  were  committed  in  submitting  and  approving  this
decoration, they cancel  each  other  as  he  was  awarded  the  decoration.
Officials at the deployed location did not submit  a  recommendation  for  a
decoration.  Only at his insistence was a  recommendation  package  prepared
by his  supervisor  at  Ramstein  AB.   It  was  properly  returned  to  the
recommending official because no one in the deployed chain  of  command  had
signed the recommendation.  The  package  was  not  taken  out  of  official
channels because when it was resubmitted with the  endorsement  of  the  TDY
commander, the original RDP was still in the package (see Exhibit B).

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and  Military  Testing
Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed applicant’s  request  and  recommends  denial.
DPPPWB states that  in  promotion  cycle  00E6  applicant  missed  promotion
selection by .43 of a point.  An AFAM is worth 1 weighted point.   The  AFAM
would make him a selectee in the  00E6  promotion  cycle.   Promotions  were
made on 31 May 00 and announced on 8  Jun  00.   Current  Air  Force  policy
dictates that for credit of  the  decoration  in  the  promotion  cycle  the
closeout date  of  the  decoration  must  be  on  or  before  the  promotion
eligibility cut-off date (PECD) and the date of the RDP must be  before  the
date of selections for the cycle.  The PECD for this cycle was  31  Dec  99.
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.  Because the RDP was signed  by  the  commander
on 18 Aug 00, after the selections were made on 31 May 00, it does not  meet
criteria for promotion credit during the 00E6  promotion  cycle.   Applicant
has not provided any conclusive evidence  that  the  decoration  was  placed
into official channels prior to the date promotions were  announced  and  he
became aware that he missed promotion by less than 1 point (see Exhibit  C.)

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  17
Aug 01 for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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
documentation provided, we are convinced that  the  AFAM  should  have  been
considered  in  the  selection  process  for  the  00E6   promotion   cycle.
Documents provided indicate that the decoration was initially submitted  for
approval in June 1999.  It appears that through no fault  of  his  own,  the
decoration was not completed until October 2000 due to  numerous  processing
errors.  In addition, it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  high  mission-
oriented  nature  of  deployments  and  high  personnel  turnover  rates  at
deployed  locations  has  historically  had  a  significant  impact  on  the
timeliness   of   decoration   processing.    The   documentation   provided
substantiates to our satisfaction that similar circumstances  were  involved
in the processing of the applicant’s AFAM.  Accordingly,  we  recommend  his
records be corrected to the extent 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  the  Recommendation  for  Decoration
Printout (RDP) (Décor-6), for the award of the Air Force  Achievement  Medal
(AFAM), Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (4OLC), covering the period 21  August  1998
through 22 December 1998, was signed  by  the  commander  on  6  July  1999,
rather than 18 August 2000.

It is further recommended that he  be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate  cycles
beginning with cycle 00E6, with the AFAM 4OLC included in his record.

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
qualifications 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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 26 Sep 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Mr. George Franklin, Member
      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 20 Jul 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Aug 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Aug 01.




                             GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                             Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-01548




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) (Décor-6), for the award of the Air Force
Achievement Medal (AFAM), Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (4OLC), covering the
period 21 August 1998 through 22 December 1998, was signed by the commander
on 6 July 1999, rather than 18 August 2000.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 00E6, with the AFAM 4OLC included in his record.

      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
qualifications 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