RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00058
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), First Oak Leaf Cluster  (1OLC),  for
the period 2 Sep 97 through 15 Jul 99, be considered for promotion in  cycle
00E7 for promotion to master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She followed up on the status of  her  decoration  several  times  with  her
supervisor and was told it was turned in and  being  processed.   Even  when
she received her Data Verification Record (DVR) in December 1999, she  again
went to her supervisor and informed her that it was not showing on her  DVR.
 It wasn’t until  after  the  promotion  release  notification  that  anyone
followed up on what happened to the decoration.

In support of her request applicant provides a  personal  statement,  copies
of  email  communications  associated  with  her  request  for  supplemental
promotion consideration, a copy of her AFAM, her AFAM orders, and  documents
associated with the AFAM recommendation package.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data  extracted  from  the  personnel  data  system   (PDS)   reflects   the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service  Date  is  26  July  1983.
She entered her most recent enlistment contract on 1  July  1998.   She  has
been progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date  of  rank  of  1 January  1997.
Records indicate that effective 6 October 2000  she  was  awarded  the  AFAM
(1OLC), for  meritorious  service  as  Noncommissioned  Officer  in  Charge,
Senior Officer Management, for the period 2 September 1997 through  15  July
1999.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and recommends denial.  DPPPWB  states
that in promotion cycle 00E7 the applicant’s total weighted promotion  score
was 333.00 and the score required for selection  was  333.98.   An  AFAM  is
worth 1 point.  If the AFAM were counted in her total score,  she  would  be
selected pending a favorable data verification check and the  recommendation
of her commander.  Promotions were made on 31 May 00 and announced on  8 Jun
00.

DPPPWB states 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 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  DÉCOR-6,  Recommendation  for  Decoration
Printout (RDP), must be before the  date  of  selection  for  the  cycle  in
question.  Each promotion cycle has an established PECD  which  is  used  to
determine what Air Force Specialty Code or Chief Enlisted Manager  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
cycle in question was 31 Dec 99.   DPPPWB  states  that  the  special  order
awarding the applicant’s AFAM does  not  meet  the  criteria  for  promotion
credit during the 00E7 because the RDP date is 10 Jul  00  and  it  was  not
placed into official channels until 26 July 00--after selections  were  made
on 31 May 00 for the 00E7 cycle.  Exceptions are  only  considered  when  an
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  limits  and  conclusive
evidence  the  recommendation  was  not   acted   upon   through   loss   or
inadvertence.  DPPPWB further states that the  applicant  has  not  provided
any conclusive evidence that the decoration was resubmitted before the  date
of selections and to approve her 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 consider  the  decoration
in the promotion process for cycle 00E7  as  an  exception  to  policy,  was
disapproved by  AFPC/DPPPWM,  the  Office  of  Primary  Responsibility,  for
enlisted promotions, on 19 Dec 00 and 19 Jan 01 (see Exhibit C).

AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application and recommends  denial.   DPPPR  states
that the applicant submits an incomplete DÉCOR 6, RDP, dated 12 Sep  99,  an
incomplete copy of a certificate/citation signed supposedly in late  Aug/Sep
and no published order.  DPPPR states that the applicant’s  chain-of-command
asserts that a recommendation package was started in 1999 but  there  is  no
documentation to show that the  package  was  placed  in  official  channels
prior to 10 Jul 00 or that a decoration was approved or awarded prior  to  6
Oct 00 (see Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  15
Feb 02 for review and response.  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 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 error or injustice.  We took careful notice of the  applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,  the  Board
majority agrees with  the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility, and adopts their rationale as  the  basis
for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error
or injustice.  The Board majority believes that persuasive evidence has  not
been  provided  that  would  lead  them  to  believe  that  the   decoration
recommendation was submitted into  official  channels  before  the  date  of
selections for the 00E7 cycle.  It is apparent by  the  statements  made  by
her chain-of-command that a recommendation package was started, however,  no
documentation to substantiate that it  was  placed  into  official  channels
prior to the promotion cycle  was  provided.   The  Board  majority  is  not
unmindful of the impact this decision has on her  career;  however,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds  no  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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-00058
in Executive Session on 17 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny  the  application.   Mr. Schlunz
voted to correct the record but elected not to  submit  a  Minority  Report.
The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Feb 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 6 Feb 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Feb 02.





                                        VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                        Panel Chair