RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02032
                                        INDEX CODE:  107.00
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive credit for his Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), and one  point
be added to his test score for cycle 01E6.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unfairly denied promotion during the 01E6 testing cycle  due  to  the
mishandling of his decoration recommendation.  His decoration was  requested
prior to the end of CY2000  and  was  signed  on  26  January  2001  by  the
detachment commander; however, it was not properly  entered  in  his  record
prior to the closeout of the 01E6 board cycle.  As a result, he  missed  the
cut-off for promotion to technical sergeant by one-tenth of a point.

He was recommended for an  AFAM  for  his  duties  performed  during  a  TDY
assignment from 10 August through 7 December 2000.  He followed up in  March
2001.  By  27  July  2001,  he  still  had  not  heard  anything  about  the
decoration package.  After  numerous  calls  and  emails  to  RAF  Akrotiri,
Cyprus, the decoration package  was  located  and  forwarded  to  him  on  7
September 2001.  On 21 December 2001 his decoration  package  was  sent  for
Supplemental Promotion Consideration.  On 25 February 2002, HQ AFPC  advised
him that the AFAM would not count toward his WAPS score of  cycle  01E6  and
advised him that if he felt an  injustice  was  done,  he  should  submit  a
petition to the Board.  The intent of the supervisor and squadron  commander
was to recommend him for an AFAM.  Due to no  negligence  of  his  own,  his
decoration paperwork was  lost.   As  a  result,  he  was  not  promoted  to
technical sergeant.

In support of his request applicant provides  a  personal  statement,  email
communication regarding his AFAM  decoration,  a  letter  of  recommendation
from the commander for award of the AFAM,  and  other  associated  documents
relating to the AFAM; copies of the order and AFAM citation; and letters  of
support from his supervisor, detachment and current commander.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data  extracted  from  the  personnel  data  system   (PDS)   reflects   the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service  Date  is  26 March  1985.
He entered his most recent enlistment contract on  14  June  1999.   He  has
been progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1 September  2002.
The PDS further shows that he has been awarded the  Air  Force  Commendation
Medal with 1 oak leaf cluster (OLC), Joint Service  Commendation  Medal  and
the Air Force Achievement Medal with 3 OLCs.  The 3rd OLC for the  AFAM  was
for outstanding achievement during the period 10 August  through  7 December
2000.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPWB  states  that  the
applicant’s total weighted promotion score for the  01E6  cycle  was  318.01
and the score required for selection was 318.11.   If  the  decoration  were
counted in the applicant’s total score,  he  would  become  a  selectee  for
promotion  pending   a   favorable   data   verification   check   and   the
recommendation of his commander.  Promotion selections for this  cycle  were
made on 31 May 2001 with a public release date of 7 June 2001.

DPPPWB states that there are two separate and  distinct  policies  regarding
the approval of decoration and the credit  of  a  decoration  for  promotion
purposes.  Current  Air  Force  promotion  policy  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 DÉCOR-6, Request  for  Decoration  Printout
(RDP), must be before the date of selection for the cycle in question.   The
PECD for the cycle 01E6 was 31 December 2000.   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.  Applicant’s record indicates that  the  DÉCOR-6  signed  by
the detachment commander on 1 November 2001 did not recommend the  applicant
for the decoration.  On 20 May 2002, the  commander  reversed  his  decision
and recommended approval.  The decoration does not  meet  the  criteria  for
promotion credit during the 01E6  cycle  because  it  was  not  placed  into
official channels until after selections were made on 29 May 2001.

DPPPWB further states that to approve the applicant’s request would  not  be
fair or equitable to many others in the same situation  who  miss  promotion
selection by a narrow margin and are not entitled  to  have  an  “after  the
fact” decoration count in the promotion process.   The  applicant’s  request
to have the decoration included in the promotion process for cycle  01E6  as
an exception to policy was disapproved by  DPPPWM,  the  Office  of  Primary
Responsibility for enlisted promotions on 24 January 2002.

AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR has no recommendation regarding this issue.   DPPPR  states  that
since the request  for  decoration  printout  (DÉCOR-6)  was  printed  on  8
December 2000 and had to be faxed to the deployed site  in  Cyprus  for  the
recommendation package to be assembled, then mailed to the applicant’s  home
site to be processed, it is unreasonable to believe that the  recommendation
package could be processed and approved prior to 31 December 2000 (PECD  for
the cycle 01E6).  The applicant has not  explained  where  the  package  was
found, why it was removed from administrative channels and sent directly  to
him, or why he did not put it back into administrative channels at his  home
station when he received it.

AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he had the decoration  package  forwarded  to  him  so
that it would not get lost again.  As soon as he  received  the  package  he
tried to get it submitted in the proper channels.   The  recommendation  not
to approve the award was done by his previous supervisor  who  did  not  get
along with him.   However,  the  commander  approved  the  decoration  on  1
November 2001.  The letter signed by his commander on 20 May 2002, was  done
to explain that had the decoration been submitted  earlier,  he  would  have
approved it.

Applicant reiterates that had the decoration  been  processed  in  a  timely
manner the decoration package would not be a problem.  The decoration  would
have been awarded before the promotion cycle 01E6 and could have been  added
to his test scores.  His decoration package was started  in  December  2000,
which was six months before promotions were announced and subsequently  lost
at the end of January 2001 and not found again until September 2001.

The applicant’s response, with attachments, 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
submitted in support  of  his  appeal,  it  is  our  opinion  that  credible
evidence has been provided to show that the original Air  Force  Achievement
Medal (AFAM) was placed into official channels  in  sufficient  time  to  be
considered  in  the  01E6  promotion  cycle.   It  appears   that   due   to
administrative errors beyond the  applicant’s  control,  the  recommendation
was lost somewhere in the administrative process.  In reviewing the  letters
from the deployed detachment commander  and  the  host  base  commander,  we
believe that the intent, direction, and desire of the applicant’s  immediate
chain of command was to have  the  award  placed  into  proper  channels  in
sufficient time to be considered in the  01E6  promotion  cycle.   The  host
base commander, who was the approval/disapproval authority  for  the  award,
indicated that had the decoration been submitted at  either  an  earlier  or
later date,  his  recommendation  would  have  been  the  same.   Given  the
unequivocal support from the senior officers involved, and having  no  basis
to question their integrity, it is our opinion that the benefit of doubt  in
this matter should be resolved in favor of  the  applicant.   Therefore,  we
recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his  Air  Force  Achievement  Medal,
Third Oak Leaf Cluster for the period  10 August  2000  through  7  December
2000 was placed into official channels on 31 December 2000.

It is further recommended that he  be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for promotion 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 this 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 any 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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 8 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

All members voted to correct the  records  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Personnel Record.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Aug 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 31 Jul 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Aug 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 02, w/atchs.





                                        ROBERT S. BOYD
                                        Panel Chair