RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01960
            INDEX CODES:  107.00, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be updated to reflect receipt of the Air Force Achievement
Medal (AFAM) for the period 2 May 96 to 26 Sep 97 on 31 Jan 98.

He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to  the  grade
of senior master sergeant for cycle 01E8, with inclusion of the AFAM.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records did not  accurately  reflect  award  of  the  AFAM,  which
subsequently resulted in his nonselection for promotion to  the  grade
of senior master sergeant during cycle 01E8.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement,  supportive  statements  from  his  former  commander   and
supervisor, and his promotion score notice.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Apr 98.   His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 30 Jul 84.

By Special Order Number GA 289, dated 19 Feb  02,  the  applicant  was
awarded the AFAM for meritorious service as Noncommissioned Officer In
Charge of Life Support, XXd Airlift Squadron, XXXXXXXXX Air Force Base
(AFB),  AXXXX,  during  the  period  2 May  96  to  26  Sep  97.   The
Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) (DECOR-6) date was 17 Dec
01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial.  They noted that the applicant’s (DECOR-
6) was dated 17 Dec 01, which was the date the  DÉCOR-6  was  printed,
and it was signed on  20  Dec  01  by  the  squadron  commander.   The
certificate/citation was signed on  13  Feb  02,  and  the  order  was
published on 19 Feb XXXXXXXX XXXX stated that he “forwarded  an  award
package for an  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal”  when  the  applicant
received a short-notice PCS, neither he nor the applicant provided any
official documentation  showing  that  a  recommendation  package  was
submitted into official channels (signed by the recommending  official
and endorsed by the next higher official  in  the  chain  of  command)
prior to 17 Dec 01.  The  applicant  did  not  provide  any  documents
showing he attempted to  resolve  the  matter  through  administrative
channels prior to submitting a DD Form 149.  He did  not  provide  the
complete recommendation package, as an exception to policy that  would
have had to be submitted with the package,  justifying  the  delay  of
more than two years before the package was submitted.   The  applicant
has  not  provided  sufficient  documentation,  other   than   missing
promotion by 0.64 points, to justify changing the date the DECOR-6 was
signed or the date the order was published to 3l Jan 98.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial indicating that there are two  separate
and distinct policies regarding the approval of a decoration  and  the
credit of a decoration for  promotion  purposes.   Current  Air  Force
promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule  5,  Note  2)  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 DECOR-6,
must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  Each
promotion cycle has an established PECD which  is  used  to  determine
what 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 cycle in question was 30  Sep  00.   In  addition,  a
decoration that a member claims was lost, downgraded,  etc.,  must  be
fully documented  and  verified  that  it  was  placed  into  official
channels prior to the selection date.

AFPC/DPPPWB stated that, as evidenced by the  special  order  awarding
the applicant’s AFAM, the decoration did not  meet  the  criteria  for
promotion credit during the 01E8 cycle because the RDP date was 17 Dec
01--after selections were made on 23 Feb 01 for the 01E8 cycle.   This
policy was initiated on 28 Feb 79 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  in
military channels within the  prescribed  time  limit  and  conclusive
evidence the  recommendation  was  not  acted  upon  through  loss  or
inadvertence.  In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2803,  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.
Again,  resubmitted  decorations  (because  initial   decoration   was
downgraded, lost, etc.,) must be placed into official  channels  prior
to the promotion selection date.  There was no indication this package
was reaccomplished and placed into official channels until 17  Dec  01
(RDP Date), which  was  after  promotions  for  the  01E8  cycle  were
announced (7  Mar  01)  and  the  applicant  became  aware  he  missed
promotion by less than three points.  Although the applicant  believes
the RDP date should be changed to a date earlier than 17 Dec 01,  this
change  would  still  not  entitle  him  to   supplemental   promotion
consideration for the 01E8 cycle as the change would be done after the
fact—after 23 Feb 01, the date promotion selections were accomplished.

AFPC/DPPPWB  indicated  that  after  an  extensive   review   of   the
circumstances of this case to include documentation the applicant  has
provided, there was no conclusive evidence  the  lost  decoration  was
resubmitted before the date of selections for the 01E8  cycle.   While
they are acutely aware of the impact this recommendation  has  on  the
applicant’s  career,  the  fact  is  the  lost  decoration   was   not
resubmitted until after selections  for  this  cycle  were  made.   To
approve the applicant’s request would not be fair or equitable to many
others in the same situation  who  missed  promotion  selection  by  a
narrow margin and were not  entitled  to  have  an  “after  the  fact”
decoration count in the promotion process.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachment, is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response indicating that the heart of this  issue
is that the AFAM was drafted and forwarded but  never  received.   The
missing medal resulted in his nonselection for promotion to the  grade
of senior master sergeant.  Even if the decoration  had  taken  twelve
months to be routed and approved, he still would have received it well
in advance of the promotion eligibility cut-off for cycle  01E8.   The
issue of the missing medal was compounded by faulty answers  from  the
very same persons who could have helped him correct the issue in  1998
when he first asked about it.   Letters  he  provided  from  both  his
squadron and flight commanders confirmed the fact  that  a  decoration
was submitted on his behalf during his  permanent  change  of  station
(PCS).  In his view, the issue of using the DECOR-6 as “proof” that  a
decoration was placed into  official  channels  before  the  promotion
cycle cut-off date is unfair because it places the burden of proof  on
the person least likely to possess  it.   He  is  asking  for  a  fair
examination of the facts and the impact it has had on his career.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, a majority of the Board does not find the applicant’s
assertions and the documentation presented in support  of  his  appeal
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force offices of  primary  responsibility  (OPRs).   No  evidence  was
presented which showed to the Board majority’s satisfaction  that  the
decoration was placed in  official  channels  prior  to  the  date  of
selection for promotion to the grade of senior  master  sergeant.   In
view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence  that
the AFAM met the criteria for promotion credit during the 01E8  cycle,
a majority of the Board adopts the Air Force rationale  and  concludes
that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01960 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 02, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

By  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  deny  the  application.
Mr. Carey voted to grant the appeal but did not  desire  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 10 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Sep 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Oct 02.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 02-01960






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 sufficient 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