RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01993
            INDEX CODE:  131.10, 107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be included in  the  01E6  promotion
selection process.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFCM was presented to him on 19 Jul 01 with an incorrect  closeout  date
of April 2001.  The AFCM was revoked and amended to reflect a closeout  date
of April 2000.  The DÉCOR-6, Request for  Decoration  Printout  (RDP),  date
for the original and the corrected medal is 1 Dec 00.   The  wrong  closeout
date on the AFCM was caused  by  an  error  outside  of  his  control.   The
corrected medal now gives the appearance that the  correction  was  for  the
sole purpose of getting him promoted, such was never the case.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided   personal   statements,
documents associated with his  AFCM  processing,  and  documents  associated
with his request for supplemental  promotion  consideration.   His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects  that  the  applicant
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  16  Apr  91.
He has been progressively promoted to the grade of  staff  sergeant,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 May 98.

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  recommends  denial.   DPPPR
states that he was originally awarded the AFCM for  the  period  18  Jan  97
through 1 Mar 01, for an extended tour at  Offutt  AFB,  NE.   The  closeout
date was changed on the DÉCOR-6, but nobody  knows  by  whom  or  why.   The
original order was revoked and he was awarded an AFCM for the period  1  Jan
97 through 1 Apr 00.

The DÉCOR-6, which was first printed on 1 Dec 00,  was  first  signed  by  a
recommending official on 1 Jan 01; however,  it  was  not  endorsed  at  the
time.  A label has  been  placed  over  the  signature  block,  with  a  new
recommending official signing the DÉCOR-6 on 22 Mar 01 and  endorsed  on  18
Apr 01.  Therefore, the recommendation is considered to have been placed  in
official channels on 18 Apr 01.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPPWB
states that his total promotion score for the 01E6 cycle was 316.10 and  the
score required for selection in his Air Force specialty was 318.15.  If  the
decoration were counted in his total score,  he  would  become  a  selectee.
Promotion selections for this cycle were made on 31 May  01  with  a  public
release date of 7 Jun 01.

Current Air Force promotion policy dictates  that  before  a  decoration  is
credited  for  a  specific  promotion  cycle,  the  closeout  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 for promotion  in,
as well as which performance reports and decorations will  be  used  in  the
promotion consideration.  The PECD  for  cycle  01E6  was  31  Dec  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.  This  policy  was  initiated  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.  A decoration is considered to have been  placed  in  official
channels when the decoration recommendation  is  signed  by  the  initiating
official and indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command.

As evidenced by the closeout date (1 Mar 01) the initial decoration did  not
meet the criteria for promotion credit during  this  cycle  because  it  was
after the PECD (31 Dec 00).  The AFCM was rescinded and resubmitted  with  a
closeout date of 1 Apr  00.   However,  it  was  not  placed  into  official
channels until 12 Aug 01, after selections for 01E6 were made (31  May  01).


The DPPPWB evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

When he was awarded the citation for the AFCM he noticed the  closeout  date
was incorrect.  His commander initiated an investigation of  his  claim  and
through the direction of the wing commander revoked the medal and  issued  a
correct one.  If the error had  not  occurred,  the  AFCM  would  have  been
included in the 01E6 selection process.  A  memo  from  the  wing  commander
states that the dates in the citation were mistakenly changed from 1 Apr  00
to 1 Mar 01.  The latest Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  used  in  the
decoration is dated 17 Jan 00.  If the medal was supposed to  close  out  in
March 2001, then bullets from his January 2001 EPR  would  have  been  used.
The  fiasco  surrounding  this  medal  was  an  honest  mistake   that   was
acknowledged by his commander's support staff.  His complete  submission  is
at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that the  AFCM  should  be  included  in  the
cycle 01E6 selection process.   In  this  regard,  we  note  that  when  the
applicant was awarded the AFCM in July 2001, the closeout date of the  award
was 1 Mar 01.  The PECD for the 01E6 cycle was 31 Dec 00 and  in  accordance
with regulations in effect at the time, the AFCM did not meet  the  criteria
for inclusion in the 01E6 selection process.  The  applicant  contends  that
the 1 Mar 01 closeout date was an administrative error and that the  correct
closeout date should have been 1 Apr 00.  He subsequently  initiated  action
through  his  supervisory  chain  to  effect  that  change.    However,   in
accordance with regulations,  in  order  for  the  resubmitted  AFCM  to  be
included in the 01E6  selection  process,  the  decoration  must  have  been
placed into official channels prior to the date  selections  were  made  for
that cycle.  Selections were made in May 2001 and the resubmitted  AFCM  was
placed into official channels in  August  2001.   Consequently,  it  is  our
opinion that the AFCM does not meet the established criteria  for  inclusion
in the 01E6 selection process.  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 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  02-01993  in
Executive Session on 3 Sep 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 26 Jun 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Aug 02.





                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-01993




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Recommendation for
Decoration Printout, for the award of the Air Force Commendation Medal,
covering the period 18 January 1997 through 1 April 2000, was signed by the
commander on 18 April 2001.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 01E6.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual’s
qualifications for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion, the
records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade
on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he
is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that
date.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                                        CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

FROM:  SAF/MR

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Case on

      I have carefully reviewed all of the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the AFBCMR panel's decision to deny the applicant's request
to include the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) in the 01E6 promotion
cycle.

      In July 2001, the applicant was awarded the AFCM for the period 18
January 1997 to 1 April 2000.  Upon receipt of the AFCM, he noted the
closeout date was March 1, 2001, rather than April 1, 2000, which was the
original intent of his supervisor.  The AFCM was not eligible for inclusion
in the 01E6 promotion process and the applicant missed selection for
promotion to technical sergeant.  Had the medal been considered, he would
have been selected for promotion.

      Applicant petitioned to have the error corrected asserting that,
because of the failure of his supervisor to follow through on the
recommendation, the improper management of decoration processing actions by
the commander's support staff personnel, and because the  closeout date was
inappropriately changed from April 1, 2000 to March 1, 2001.  His
supervisors agreed with his assertion, obtained the concurrence of the wing
commander, and on August 21, 2001, the AFCM was reaccomplished with a
corrected closeout date of April 1, 2000.  The applicant requested
supplemental promotion consideration and his request was denied because
resubmission of the AFCM was initiated after the date selections were made
for the 01E6 cycle, 31 May 2001.


      The applicant's commander provided a statement indicating that members
of his support staff were interviewed and it was determined that the
closeout date of the AFCM was inappropriately changed.  Given the unusual
length of time it took to process the recommendation, the unequivocal
support from senior officers involved, and having no basis to question
their integrity, I believe the benefit of doubt should be resolved in favor
of the applicant.  Accordingly, it is my decision that he be granted
supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 01E6 with the inclusion of
the contested AFCM.





                                        MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
                                        Assistant Secretary
                                        (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)