RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03776

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Recommendation  for  Decoration  Printout  (RDP)  date  for  the  Aerial
Achievement Medal (AAM) he was awarded be changed from  21 January  2003  to
29 April 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The squadron failed to input the RDP date  prior  to  processing  because  a
dummy  RDP  was  used  instead  of  a  computer  generated  one.   Once  the
decoration was approved the squadron input the current date  of  21  January
2003, which was incorrect.

In support of the  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  a  statement  from  the
Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Chief, a copy of the decoration package  and
the orders and citation to accompany award of the AAM.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
staff sergeant (E-5).

Promotion selections for cycle 02E6 were made on 18 June 2002 and  announced
on 27 June 2002.  The total weighted promotion score required for  selection
in the  applicant's  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  was  320.35.   The
applicant's total  weighted  promotion  score  was  318.24.   The  Promotion
Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) was 31 December 2001.

On 21 January 2003, an RDP was placed into  official  channels  recommending
him for the Aerial Achievement  Medal  (AAM).   Headquarters  ---nd  Mission
Support Squadron, Special Order --- -----, dated 3 March 2003,  awarded  him
the AAM for the period 4 September 1999 to 28 December  2001.   The  AAM  is
worth 3 points in the computation of a  member’s  total  weighted  promotion
score.

For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle,  the
closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the  date
of the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.

Since the RDP was prepared after selections for cycle 02E6  were  announced,
the decoration was not considered in the promotion process for the cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
since the RDP prepared on the applicant did  not  have  a  date  of  initial
printout, the date the decoration was placed in official channels  was  used
(21 January 2003).  While he provides  copies  of  computer  screens  in  an
effort to show that his decoration  was  initiated  on  29  April  2002,  he
provides no evidence to indicate that it was placed into  official  channels
prior to 21 January 2003.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied, and states, in part,  that
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 PECD, and the RDP must be before the date of  selections
for the cycle in question.  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.   The
decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during  the  02E6
cycle because there is no tangible evidence the decoration was  placed  into
official channels prior to the date selections  for  the  cycle  were  made.
Documentation included in his case file  reflects  the  decoration  was  not
officially placed into military channels  until  after  selections  for  the
02E6 cycle were accomplished.

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Compared with the other Air Force members awarded the AAM on  special  order
--- ----, it is obvious his RDP  date  is  in  error.   Upon  his  Permanent
Change Station (PCS),  he  was  assured  the  AAM  was  being  worked.   His
commanders  at  all  levels  approved  the  recommendation  in  April  2002.
Furthermore, the MPF Chief admits to the unit’s use of “dummy” RDPs  at  the
time his decoration was initiated, which affected  the  entire  process  and
created his delayed award presentation.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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  careful  review  of  the  evidence
provided,  we  are  persuaded  that  the  recommendation  for   the   Aerial
Achievement Medal was placed into official channels prior to selections  for
cycle 02E6.  In this respect, we noted the statement  from  the  Awards  and
Decorations Monitor at the applicant’s former unit who indicated that  based
on recurring problems with the Military Personnel  Data  System  and  PC-III
during the period in question,  there  was  a  practice  in  a  few  of  the
organizations to  use  a  “dummy”  Recommendation  for  Decoration  Printout
(DECOR-6).  However, this was not an official document and did  not  contain
all of the information required on a DECOR-6, one  of  them  being  the  RDP
date.  In view of this, and given the deployment  of  the  squadron  support
staff, an official RDP was not prepared until  after  selections  for  cycle
O2E6.  Based on a preponderance of the evidence presented,  we  believe  the
applicant’s rating chain  intended  for  the  decoration  to  be  processed,
approved, and filed in his records  prior  to  selections  for  cycle  O2E6.
Therefore, we do not believe he should be penalized for this  administrative
oversight and recommend 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  the  Recommendation  for  Decoration
Printout (RDP) for the  Aerial  Achievement  Medal  (AAM)  awarded  for  the
period 4 October 1999 to 28 December 2001, was signed by  the  commander  on
29 April 2002, rather than 21 January 2003.

It is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental  promotion
consideration to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  for  all  appropriate
cycles, beginning with cycle O2E6.

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
qualification 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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2002-03776
in Executive Session on 5 November 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                       Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 Aug 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Oct 03, w/atch.


                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2002-03776




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 (RDP) for the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) awarded
for the period 4 October 1999 to 28 December 2001, was signed by the
commander on 29 April 2002, rather than 21 January 2003.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental promotion
consideration to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate
cycles, beginning with cycle O2E6.

      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
qualification 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