RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02705
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted supplemental promotion  consideration  to  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant (SMSgt) for cycle 02E8 with his record corrected
to include the citation for the Air Force Commendation Medal, Third Oak
Leaf Cluster (AFCM) (3OLC) closing 19 Sep 01 and removal of  the  Board
Discrepancy Report.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

AFPC/DPPPW did not fully consider the merits  of  his  request  for  an
exception  to  policy  to  senior  NCO  (SNCO)  supplemental  promotion
consideration.  First, the personnel system did  not  ensure  that  his
AFCM (3OLC) was  included  in  his  SNCO  promotion  selection  folder.
Secondly,  AFPC  did  not  follow  standard  procedure   in   producing
discrepancy notices seven days prior to the board  due  to  MILMOD  and
stop-loss issues, which would have given the local  Military  Personnel
Flights (MPFs) time  to  respond  with  copies  of  missing  documents.
Third, AFPC failed to inform the  promotion  board  of  the  change  in
procedures.

Applicant provides a memorandum with 12 attachments in support  of  his
appeal.  The applicant indicates that the memorandum is in response  to
issues brought up by AFPC/DPPPW in their denial of his request.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
master sergeant.  The applicant’s records were evaluated  by  the  SNCO
Evaluation Board for cycle 02E8 on 23 Jan 02.   The  applicant’s  board
score was 345.00.  His total score was 626.40 and  the  score  required
for selection in his AFSC was 643.20.  The citation for the applicant’s
AFCM (3OLC) was  missing  from  his  selection  folder.   However,  the
decoration was reflected on the SNCO Evaluation Brief and  reviewed  by
the evaluation board.

________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  A review  of
the applicant’s HQ USAF Selection Folder reflects that the AFCM  (3OLC)
was included on the Senior NCO Evaluation Brief  and  reviewed  by  the
evaluation board.  A  decoration  is  not  considered  missing  if  the
citation or order is filed in the  folder  or  if  the  decoration  was
listed on the brief used by the board.

Board  members  are   briefed   that   discrepancy   letters   are   an
administrative tool simply to let them know that  AFPC  is  aware  that
there is a disparity between the record contents and the information on
the brief.  It lets the board know that information  on  the  brief  is
correct and the records section is trying  to  obtain  a  copy  of  the
decoration.  If the discrepancy letter were not in  the  record,  board
members would constantly be questioning the validity of the  update  on
the brief.  This would also be the case if the decoration were  in  the
record, but not in the brief.

The applicant provides comments from board members  highlighting  their
opinions regarding record deficiencies; however, he does not  highlight
their opinions regarding the type of decoration they feel a MSgt should
receive during a permanent change of station (PCS).  Four of  the  five
board members stated that a Meritorious Service Medal is the norm for a
MSgt during a PCS or is in  a  position  to  obtain  an  extended  tour
decoration.  The board did not favorably  view  a  member  receiving  a
lesser decoration for a PCS  or  extended  tour.   The  decoration  the
applicant is  requesting  be  reviewed  supplementary  is  an  AFCM  he
received for a PCS.  This may have negatively impacted his score.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicated in his response to  the  Air  Force  evaluation
that there appears to be only one fair way to resolve the issue of  the
impact of the missing decoration citation.  That would be for the Board
to direct that his record be scored by a supplemental  board  with  the
citation included and the discrepancy notice removed.

He indicates that it is ironic that AFPC has denied  the  impact  of  a
discrepancy in his promotion record because board  member  feedback  is
not official policy,  yet  they  point  to  board  member  feedback  to
highlight another area that may have impacted scoring  of  his  record.
In regards to AFPC’s indication that the  board  may  have  viewed  his
receipt of an AFCM during his PCS negatively, he points out that he had
received an MSM just 14 months prior for completing a  three-year  tour
and he also had received an Air Force Achievement Medal for his support
of Operation Allied Force in 1999.

The applicant states that he did  everything  possible  to  ensure  his
record was up to date.  He requests that the promotion  board  have  an
opportunity to review his record without bias.

Applicant’s complete response 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.  We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;  however,  a
majority of the Board was not persuaded  that  the  missing  decoration
citation  and  inclusion  of  the  discrepancy  report  precluded   the
applicant’s records from being fairly scored.  In fact the majority  of
the  Board  believes  that  the  promotion  board  member  comments  in
reference to “missing decoration for  a  tour  of  duty”  listed  under
“negative attributes in records” refers to failure of the member to  be
awarded a decoration during a tour of duty,  not  a  missing  citation.
The applicant’s contested decoration was clearly listed on  the  Senior
NCO Evaluation Brief.  Finally, while the Board acknowledges actions by
the applicant to get the citation included in his records, the majority
of the Board finds no error or injustice in application of  the  stated
Air Force policy  denying  him  supplemental  promotion  consideration.
Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board
majority finds no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the  relief
requested.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of  the  Board  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02705 in
Executive Session on 23 October 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mr. James E. Short, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s  request.   Mr.
Russell voted to grant the applicant’s requests but did not  desire  to
submit a minority  report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 29 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 16 Oct 02.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON
                                   Panel Chair


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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the
applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommended the case be denied.  I do not agree with their
recommendation.  I believe that the applicant took appropriate steps
to ensure that his decoration was filed in his selection folder.  As
such, the discrepancy report that had to be filed in his record
documented an error not of his making.  The promotion system places a
large responsibility on the individual to ensure the accuracy of their
records.  In circumstances such as those of the applicant where all
reasonable efforts were exhausted to ensure that the records were
correct, it would be an injustice to deny him consideration with an
accurate record.  In consideration of the actions taken by the
applicant to ensure that his records were complete and accurate prior
to the convening of the selection board, I believe that he should be
provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior
master sergeant with the citation for his Air Force Commendation Medal
(3OLC) included.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency
AFBCMR 02-02705




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 XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that
the citation for the Air Force Commendation Medal, Third Oak Leaf
Cluster, awarded for the period 3 July 2000 to 19 September 2001, was
accepted for file on 16 January 2002.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-
8) beginning with cycle 02E8.

      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.