RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01125
            INDEX CODE:  131.01  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Achievement Medal  (AFAM)  second  oak  leaf  cluster  (2OLC),
awarded for the period 1 Feb 01 through  15  Mar  01,  be  included  in  his
promotion cycle 01E7 selection process to master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The paperwork to award him the AFAM was started in  November  2000  but  was
not completed due to his commander being on temporary  duty  (TDY)  and  his
subsequent permanent change of station (PCS), as well as problems  with  PC-
III.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  statement  from  his
commanders, a copy of his promotion cycle  01E7  Weighted  Airman  Promotion
System (WAPS) score notice, and documents associated with the processing  of
his AFAM 2OLC.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  23
May 85.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  technical  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Mar  99.
He was considered and not selected for promotion  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant in the 01E7 promotion cycle.

The remaining 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 at Exhibits B and C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  states  that  the   letters
attached to his application show that the  initial  paperwork  submitted  in
November 2000 was not a final recommendation package, since  a  DÉCOR-6  did
not accompany the package recommending the whole flight  for  an  AFAM.   In
February 2001 the unit tried to finalize the recommendation package  on  the
applicant, but had not ordered a DÉCOR-6 while he was  still  in  the  unit.
Therefore, they had to order it from his new unit in England, on 16 Jul  01.
  Any  decoration  recommendation  package  will  have   delays,   but   the
administrative delays in this case did not start until February  2001,  when
the package was being finalized.  Prior to then, it was considered a  draft.
 Decoration recommendations are required to be submitted within 2 years  and
awarded within 3 years of the act,  accomplishment,  or  service  performed.
His AFAM was processed and awarded well within the time limits.   The  DPPPR
evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPPWB
states that his total WAPS score for cycle 01E7 was  329.96  and  the  score
required for selection in his Air Force specialty was 330.86.  The AFAM,  if
counted in his total score would make him a  selectee.   Current  Air  Force
promotion policy dictates  that  before  a  decoration  is  credited  for  a
promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on  or  before
the Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD), and the date of  the  DÉCOR-6
must be before the date  of  selections  for  the  cycle  in  question.   In
addition, a decoration that a members claims  was  lost,  downgraded,  etc.,
must be fully documented and verified  that  it  was  placed  into  official
channels prior to the selection date.  The PECD for the  cycle  in  question
was 31 Dec 00.

The decoration does not meet the criteria for credit during the  01E7  cycle
because the DÉCOR-6 date is 16 Jul 01--after the selections were made on  29
May 01 for the 01E7 cycle.  This policy was initiated in  1979  specifically
to  preclude  individuals  from  subsequently  submitting  someone   for   a
decoration with a retroactive close-out date so as  to  put  them  over  the
selection cut-off score.  Exceptions are only  considered  when  the  airman
can  support  a  previous  submission  with  documentation   or   statements
including conclusive evidence that  the  recommendation  was  officially  in
military channels with in the prescribed time limit and  the  recommendation
was  not  acted  upon  through  loss  or  inadvertence.   A  decoration   is
considered to have been placed into official channels when  the  DÉCOR-6  is
signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official  in  the
chain of command.  The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on  10  May
02 for review and comment 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that
the AFAM in question should be  considered  in  the  promotion  process  for
cycle 01E7.  We note that in order for a decoration to  be  credited  for  a
specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration  must  be  on
or before the PECD and the date of the DÉCOR-6 must be before  the  date  of
selections for a particular cycle.  In  this  respect,  convincing  evidence
has not been provided which would lead us to  believe  that  the  decoration
was placed into official channels prior to the  date  selections  were  made
for the 01E7 cycle.  In view of the foregoing, we find no basis  upon  which
to recommend favorable consideration of his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  02-01125  in
Executive Session on 27 Jun 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 17 Apr 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.




                                             ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                             Panel Chair