RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00372

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), First Oak Leaf  Cluster  (1OLC)  for
the period 22 November 1988 -  14  November  1989,  be  considered  for  all
cycles from 1990 for promotions to staff and technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Upon his permanent change of station  from  Kunsan  Air  Base,  Republic  of
Korea, in November 1989, an Air Force Achievement  Medal  was  submitted  by
his squadron commander, Richard Loewenhagen.  Upon his arrival at  his  next
duty station, Davis-Monthan  Air  Force  Base,  AZ,  the  Consolidated  Base
Personnel Office (CBPO) had not yet  received  this  award  in  from  Korea.
Within a year  of  his  arrival  in  Arizona,  he  deployed  in  Support  of
Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM.  After his arrival back from this  operation,
he inquired again, approximately 1 April 1991,  as  to  the  whereabouts  of
this medal.  Again, the  CBPO  had  not  received  it.   At  that  time,  he
considered  this  submission  lost  and  contacted  his  previous   squadron
commander.  They reaccomplished the decoration package  and  resubmitted  it
to the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at  Kunsan  Air  Base.   After  giving  the
submission, adequate time for processing and  another  permanent  change  of
station to Antigua Air Station, West Indies, he inquired on its  whereabouts
on  approximately  1  August  1992.   Again,  his  servicing  CBPO  had   no
information on its overseas location to Lt Col  L___’s  stateside  place  of
assignment in order to reaccomplish  yet  another  package  for  submission.
The decoration  package  was  resubmitted  with  his  approval  to  the  8th
Tactical Fighter Wing, Kunsan Air Base, this being the third  submission  in
less than three years.  After four years and two further  permanent  changes
of stations, a fourth resubmission (photo  copy  of  third  submission)  was
made to Kunsan Air Base.  This fourth  submission  was  made  while  he  was
stationed  at  Osan  Air  Base,  Republic  of  Korea,   after   a   personal
conversation with Col M___,  then  the  commander  and  decoration  approval
official 8th Fighter Wing, Kunsan Air Base.   Once  again,  this  decoration
submission disappeared with no record of receipt by Kunsan  personnel.   Due
to continuous  frustration,  his  inability  to  get  information  on  these
submissions, need to concentrate on family and overwhelming requirements  as
an Air Force Recruiter and  two  more  permanent  changes  of  station,  the
package was not resubmitted until he contacted Lt Col P___, Vice  Commander,
Pacific Air Forces, on 29 October 2002.  At his advice, he  resubmitted  the
package directly to the 8th Military  Personnel  Flight,  Kunsan  Air  Base,
after he contacted them inquiring  on  his  behalf.   This  submission,  the
fifth in thirteen years, was subsequently approved  by  base  officials  and
entered in to his personnel records.  It is obvious that it took  a  general
officer to correct this discrepancy and drive this  to  completion  and  not
due to complacency on his part.  He followed  proper  guidelines,  chain  of
command, and adhered to advice from base personnel  agencies  who  told  him
that he could take some time to get his  decoration  approved  due  to  huge
backlogs at most 12 month  tour  locations.   His  achievements  during  the
inclusive date merit the award of the Air Force Achievement Medal as  stated
by his commander during that time.

In support of his request applicant provided copies of email  communication,
original AFAM orders and citation and a  copy  of  AFI  36-2603,  Air  Force
Board for Corrections of Military Records, letter  form  12  AF/IGI,  signed
décor-6 and copy of EPR dated 1 Oct 89.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

An AFAM  is  worth  one  weighted  promotion  point.   The  one  point  this
decoration is worth would not have made the applicant a  selectee  to  staff
sergeant during cycles 90A5 and 93B5.  He was  selected  from  promotion  to
staff sergeant during 94A5.  The one point this decoration  is  worth  would
not have made him a selectee to technical sergeant during  cycles  96E6  and
99E6 as his total promotion score was more  than  1  point  lower  than  the
score required for selection.  He was selected for  promotion  to  technical
sergeant during cycle 00E6.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial  stated  that  there  are  two  separate  and
distinct policies.  Current Air Force policy (AFI 36-2502, Airman  Promotion
Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5,  Note  2),  dictates  that  for  credit  of  the
decoration in the promotion cycle the closeout date of the  decoration  must
be on or before the promotion eligibility cut-off date (PECD) and  the  date
of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), 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.  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 decoration does not meet the criteria  for  promotion  credit  for  any
cycle prior to 97E6 because the DÉCOR-6 was signed by the commander  placing
the Recommendation for Decoration into official channels on  27  July  1996,
after selections were made and announced  for  previous  cycles.   It  would
serve no useful purpose  to  grant  the  applicant’s  request  to  have  the
decoration considered in the promotion process for past cycles as  he  would
not become a selectee for staff sergeant any earlier than         1  January
1994 or technical sergeant any earlier than 1 January 2001
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  7
March 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the  documentation
provided, we are convinced that the AFAM should have been considered in  the
selection process for the previous promotion cycles of  90A5-93B5  for  SSgt
and 96E6-99E6 for TSgt.  Documents provided  indicate  that  the  decoration
was initially submitted for approval in  November  1989.   It  appears  that
through no fault of his own, the decoration was lost.  In addition, it is  a
well-known fact that the high mission-oriented  nature  of  deployments  and
high personnel turnover rates at overseas locations has historically  had  a
significant  impact  on  the  timeliness  of  decoration  processing.    The
documentation  provided  substantiates  to  our  satisfaction  that  similar
circumstances were involved in  the  processing  of  the  applicant’s  AFAM.
Accordingly, we recommend that  his  records  be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.  We note that the Air Force has determined  that  inclusion
of the AFAM  will  not  result  in  changes  to  his  selection  status  for
promotion cycles to the grades of staff and  technical  sergeant.   However,
inasmuch as the applicant contends that the  inclusion  of  the  AFAM  would
make a difference in his selection to  the  grade  of  staff  and  technical
sergeant in order to resolve any injustice to  the  applicant  we  recommend
the applicants record be corrected as indicated.

_________________________________________________________________

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) (Décor-6), for the award of the Air Force  Achievement  Medal
(AFAM), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC), covering the period 22 November  1988
through    14 November 1989, was signed by  the  commander  on  15  November
1989, rather than 15 October 2002.

It is further directed that he be provided  supplemental  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for  the  90A5  through  93B5
cycles.

If selected for promotion to staff sergeant by  supplemental  consideration,
he be provided any  additional  supplemental  consideration  required  as  a
result of that selection.

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.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 3 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
            Mr. George Franklin, Member
            Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Feb 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.



                             WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-00372




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) (Décor-6), for the award of the Air Force
Achievement Medal (AFAM), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC), covering the
period 22 November 1988 through 14 November 1989 was signed by the
commander on 15 November 1989, rather than 15 October 2002.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for the 90A5 through
93B5 cycles.

      If selected for promotion to staff sergeant by supplemental
consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration
required as a result of that selection.

      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