RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01634
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) with  3rd  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (OLC)
covering the period 14 March 1993 through 14 March  1998  be  considered  in
the promotion process for cycle 99E6 to technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In essence, that the recommendation for the AFCM had in  fact  entered  into
official channels prior to the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD)  and
the promotion selection date for the 99E6 cycle.  However, the  package  was
delayed due to corrections from higher headquarters or misplaced during  the
change of personnel in the Command Support Staff office.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
letter from Commander Clouse, dated 14  May  2001,  letter,  from  Commander
Beauregard, dated 18 April  2000,  letter,  from  Commander  Doty,  dated  9
September 1999, and other documentation.

The 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
Technical Sergeant.

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared  by  the
appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C & D).   Accordingly,  there
is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Recognition  Programs,  Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition
Division,  AFPC/DPPPR,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that   the
applicant served with the 3rd Services Squadron at Elmendorf AFB, AK  during
the period 14 March 1995 through 14 March 1998.  Prior to his departure,  he
discussed an end-of-tour decoration with  his  supervisor.   A  Request  for
Decoration Printout (RDP) was requested and printed out on  14  March  1998.
Unfortunately, because  of  a  complete  change  of  personnel  in  the  3rd
Services  Squadron,  delays  caused  by  determination  of  the   level   of
decoration to be awarded, and administrative re-writes,  the  recommendation
package was not placed in official channels  (Attachment  1)  until  2  June
1999.  However, this is well within the two-year limitation  for  submitting
a recommendation for a decoration.

Applicant claims his recommendation package was placed in official  channels
prior to the PECD date of 31 December 1998 and the selection date of 17  May
1999.  However, a copy of the RDP provided by the applicant  shows  that  it
was printed out on  14 March  1998,  but  not  signed  by  the  recommending
official until 1 June 1999 and not endorsed until  2  June  1999.   Someone,
other than the recommending official, changed the date the form  was  signed
from 1 June 1999 to 29 March 1998.

Applicant provided statements from the colonel who  commanded  the  squadron
at the time of the  applicant’s  departure  and  the  colonel  who  was  the
subsequent  commander  who  endorsed  the  recommendation   package.    Both
colonels state that the recommendation package  “entered  official  channels
the 14th day of March 1998;” however, this statement is incorrect, based  on
the definition of “placed in official channels” set  forth  in  AFI  36-2803
(Attachment 2).  The RDP was printed out on 14 March  1998,  not  signed  or
endorsed on that date.  Therefore,  the  recommendation  package  could  not
have been in official channels until 2 June 1999.

The applicant has requested congressional intervention  on  at  least  three
occasions; each time  he  has  been  told  that  he  has  not  provided  any
documentation to substantiate his claim that a  recommendation  package  was
in official channels prior to the selection date or PECD.  It was  noted  in
the 1 March 2000 response to the  applicant’s  congressional  representative
(DD Form 149, Tab 4) that prior  to  each  promotion  cycle,  each  eligible
member received a data verification record (DVR), which contains  data  used
in  the  promotion  selection  process.   Each  member  is  responsible  for
reviewing  the  promotion  data  on  this  notice,   and   it   is   his/her
responsibility to bring any missing or incorrect data to  the  attention  of
the military personnel office so the data can  be  corrected  prior  to  the
actual selection process.  The memorandum also  stated  that  the  applicant
leaves the impression that this decoration did not  become  an  issue  until
after he found out  he  was  a  nonselectee  for  promotion.   In  his  last
application to his  congressional  representative,  the  applicant  provided
statements from two chief master sergeants that he had asked to  review  his
case.  Unfortunately, their statements are irrelevant, as  they  are  not  a
part of the approval/disapproval chain of command  and  have  no  first-hand
knowledge of any of the events.  The only basis for making  any  changes  to
the  applicant’s  RDP  would  be  if  there  were   any   proof   that   the
recommendation package had been submitted prior to  2  June  1999;  however,
since the RDP is the original one requested, and printed  out  on  14  March
1998 but not filled in until  June  1999,  they  can  not  verify  that  any
package was submitted into official channels and subsequently  lost  or  not
acted upon.

They recommend no changes be made to the Air Force Commendation  Medal  with
Third Oak Leaf Cluster awarded to the applicant  for  the  period  14  March
1993 through 14 March 1998.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, Enlisted  Promotion  &  Military  Testing
Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this  application  and  states  that  the
applicant’s total promotion score for the 99E6 cycle  was  331.97,  and  the
score required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty  Code(CAFSC)
was 333.76.  The applicant missed promotion selection by  1.79  points.   An
AFCM is worth 3 weighted promotion points.  The 3 points this decoration  is
worth would make him a selectee to technical  sergeant  during  cycle  99E6,
pending  favorable  data  verification  and  the   recommendation   of   his
commander.  Promotions  for  this  cycle  were  made  on  17  May  1999  and
announced 27 May 1999.

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, Airman  Promotion  Program,
Table 2.2, rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before  a  decoration  is  credited
for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date must be on or  before  the
Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD),  and  the  date  of  the  DÉCOR-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  Air  Force  Specialty
Code (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 December 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 decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit  during  the
99E6 cycle because the DÉCOR 6 was  signed  by  the  commander  placing  the
Recommendation for Decoration into official channels on 2 June  1999,  after
selections were made on 17 May 1999 and announced  on  27  May  1999.   This
policy was initiated 28 February 1979  to  specifically  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 into military channels  within
the prescribed time limit and conclusive  evidence  the  recommendation  was
not acted upon through loss or  inadvertence.   IAW  AFI  36-2803,  The  Air
Force Awards  and  Decorations  Program,  paragraph  3.1,  a  decoration  is
considered to have been placed into official channels  when  the  decoration
recommendation is signed by  the  initiating  official  and  indorsed  by  a
higher official in the chain of command.

After an extensive review of the  circumstances  of  this  case  to  include
documentation provided, there is no conclusive evidence the  decoration  was
placed into official channels prior to the date  promotions  were  announced
for the 99E6 cycle and  the  applicant  became  aware  that  he  had  missed
promotion by less than 2 points.  To approve this request would not be  fair
or equitable to many  others  in  the  same  situation  who  miss  promotion
selection by a narrow margin and are not entitled  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 HQ Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC).  They concur with this action.   If
the  dates  placed  into  official  channels  were  changed  it  would   not
automatically entitle him to be supplementally considered for  any  previous
promotion cycles, as it was not a matter of record at  the  time  selections
were made.  However, if the AFBCMR  grants  the  request,  it  could  direct
supplemental promotion  consideration  for  cycle  99E6.   As  a  matter  of
information the applicant  became  a  select  for  cycle,  00E6  which  will
increment September/October 2001  time  frame.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations  and  provided  a  response
which is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________





THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  the   Air   Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM) with 3rd  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (OLC)  covering  the
period 14 March 1993 through 14 March 1998 be considered  in  the  promotion
process for cycle 99E6  to  technical  sergeant  (TSgt).   After  thoroughly
reviewing the documentation submitted with  this  application,  we  are  not
persuaded that the award was  placed  in  official  channels  prior  to  the
announcement of selections for promotion cycle 99E6.  It appears  the  award
was initiated in March 1998 but was returned by the unit  commander  to  the
applicant’s supervisor for further evaluation; therefore, it did  not  enter
official channels at that time.  The statements provided  by  the  applicant
are duly noted; however, they do not  conclusively  substantiate  the  award
was placed in official channels (i.e., signed  by  the  initiating  official
and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command)  as  asserted  by
the  applicant  during  the  contested   time   period.    Apparently,   the
applicant’s new commander submitted the award package  which  was  forwarded
to the next higher authority and ultimately  approved.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 27 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member
                  Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member




The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 2 August 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 August 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 August 2001.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 September 2001.




                                PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                Panel Chair