ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02546A
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that he be
considered for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of
master sergeant for cycle 01E7, with inclusion of the Air Force
Achievement Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM 2OLC) in his records.
______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 14 November 2001, the Board considered and denied applicant's 31
August 2001 application requesting that he be considered for supplemental
promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 01E7,
with inclusion of the Air Force Achievement Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf
Cluster (AFAM 2OLC) in his records. A complete copy of the Record of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G.
On 22 May 2002, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration and
provided a statement from his Squadron Commander at the time in question.
He also provided an e-mail from his current commander. His request,
with attachments, is attached at Exhibit H.
______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing the evidence provided, the majority of the Board is
not persuaded that a revision of our earlier determination in this case
is warranted. Even though the RDP was prepared on 24 March 2000, it
appears that the applicant and others were initially recommended for
award of the Meritorious Service Medal, which was disapproved in April
2001 and that the recommendation for the AFAM was not signed by the
recommending and approving officials and placed into official channels
until 21 June 2001, nearly 2 months after selections for cycle 01E7 were
made. The recommending official has supported the applicant’s appeal;
the approving official who indicates he assumed his position as group
commander in May 2000 does not support it. In addition, in his letter of
support, the recommending official states that the approving official in
the position of group commander at the time the applicant’s RDP was
prepared had indicated he would not approve awards of the AFAM for all
members of the unit so the decision was made to hold the recommendations
for the new commander. The most relevant new evidence provided for our
review is the statement by the former squadron commander who indicates
that he delayed submitting the RDP until June 2001. However, the Board
majority does not find this statement provides an adequate basis for
approval of the requested relief. While the applicant believes he has
been the victim of an injustice as a result of the actions taken in this
case, the time taken to process the award of the AFAM was within
allowable standards. Furthermore, the evidence appears to indicate that
the applicant was not the only member whose award was delayed as a result
of the actions taken in this case. The applicant has provided no
evidence showing he was treated differently from similarly affected
members of the unit or that the commander who declined to approve the
awards abused his discretionary authority. Accordingly, the Board
majority finds no basis on which to favorably consider his request.
______________________________________________________________
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 19 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Mr.
Jay H. Jordan voted to correct the records but does not desire to submit
a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 14 Dec 01,
w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Applicant's Application dated 22 May 02,
w/atchs.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-02546A
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that this decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 01E7 cycle because there is no tangible evidence the decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date selections for the 01E7 cycle were made. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
On 25 September 2000, the Promotion Management Section at AFPC denied the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E5 because the decoration recommendation was not placed into official channels until after selections for cycle 00E5. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is...
Applicant has submitted letters of support and recommendation from his command chain. 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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01093
If the dates placed into the official channels were changed, it would not automatically entitle him to be considered for any previous promotion cycles because it was not a matter of record at the time selections were made. On June 10, 2003, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s requests on the basis that the decoration did not meet the criteria for promotion consideration for cycle 02E7. Specifically, Air Force policy dictates for a decoration to be considered in a promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01111
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a notarized statement from his supervisor at the time, a statement from the Flying Crew Chief Program Manager, a statement from the First Sergeant at the time, a copy of Cycle 01E7 Promotion Score Sheet, AAM with DÉCOR 6, AFPC’s response with promotion selection date, an excerpt of AFI 36-2502, a copy of the AFCM with incorrect date, a copy of the amended AFCM and a copy of the correction of Military Records reply. If the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01039
Promotion selections for the cycle 05E7 were made on 6 June 2005. 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, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration based on the AFCM, 2OLC, was denied by AFPC because the resubmitted...
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,...
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. Additional relevant facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01736
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01736 INDEX CODE: 131.01, 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM/1OLC) for the period 9 October 1996 through 18 October 1999 be considered in the promotion process for cycle 01E7 to master sergeant. He was then told by...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01069
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01069 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 SEPTEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC), for the period 11 March 1999 through 17 October 2003 be considered in the promotion process for cycle 04E6 to...