RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00668
            INDEX CODE 107.00131.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be afforded supplemental promotion consideration to  the  grade  of
technical  sergeant  (TSgt)  for  cycle  01E6  with  the   Air   Force
Commendation Medal, 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM 1OLC) in his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has  proven  that  this  decoration  was  submitted  prior  to  the
selection date by submitting two DECOR-6s and two coordination sheets.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWM contradicted its findings in its two considerations  of
this case. Since HQ  AFPC/DPPPWM  instructed  his  servicing  military
personnel flight (MPF) to correct his record to reflect  the  closeout
date as 30 Jun 00, the decoration  should  be  included  in  the  01E6
promotion  cycle.  There  is  no  conspiracy  between   his   previous
superintendent/first sergeant, squadron commander  and  his  servicing
MPF to get him promoted.  This decoration was to acknowledge his  past
accomplishments and it is disturbing that  the  Air  Force  insinuates
this award was submitted for promotion purposes.

The applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  12  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of TSgt, with a date of rank of 1 Nov 02.  He was  selected  for
promotion by the 02E6 cycle.

AFI 36-2502 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, Request for Decoration  Printout  (RDP)  must  be
before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  A decoration
that a member  claims  was  lost,  downgraded,  etc.,  must  be  fully
documented and verified showing it was placed into  official  channels
prior to the selection date. According to AFI 36-2803, a decoration is
placed into official channels when the  decoration  recommendation  is
signed by the initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in
the chain of command.

The PECD for cycle 01E6 was 31 Dec 00.

A DECOR-6, dated 6 Jun 00, recommended the applicant for the AFCM 1OLC
as an end-of-tour decoration for the period 20 Oct 93 to 30 Jun 00. It
was signed on 26 Jun 00 and endorsed on 28 Jun 00.  The recommendation
package arrived for approval/disapproval/downgrade on 24  Jul  00  and
was returned on 25 Jul  00  because  the  group  commander  wanted  to
downgrade the decoration to an Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM).  At
that point the process stopped.

On 1 Feb 01, a second DECOR-6 was requested for the AFCM 1OLC for  the
period 20 Oct 93 to 26 Jan 01 (rather than 30 Jun 00). The package was
originally submitted for permanent change of assignment (PCA -  change
of duty, same base), but “PCA” was crossed out and “Extended Tour” was
written by paragraph E. The DECOR-6 was signed on 12 Feb 01.

Promotion selections for cycle 01E6 were announced on 7  Jun  01;  the
applicant was not a selectee for TSgt.

On 18 Jun 01 the order  awarding  the  applicant  the  AFCM  1OLC  was
published for the period 20 Oct 93 to 26 Jan 01.

On 9 Jul 01, the applicant’s  squadron  commander  asked  the  MPF  to
change the closeout date from 26 Jan 01 to 30  Jun  00  (the  closeout
date of the 6 Jun 00 DECOR-6). On  8  Aug  01,  the  MPF  amended  the
original order and changed the closeout date of the decoration  to  30
Jun 00.

The applicant applied for supplemental promotion consideration  on  27
Aug 01.  His request to have the decoration included in the  promotion
process for cycle 01E6 was denied by the Promotion Management  Section
at AFPC on 11 Dec 01 and again on 1 Jul 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the squadron commander did not request a change of
the closeout date of the decoration until 9 Jul 01, and the  applicant
applied for supplemental promotion consideration on 27 Aug  01,  after
the closeout date was changed.  Since the  squadron  commander  signed
the valid DECOR-6 in Feb 01, with the closeout date of 26 Jan 01, that
is the proper closeout date. The closeout date was not contested until
after the selection date. The second package is considered to  be  the
only valid recommendation package, even though the squadron  commander
used the closeout date from  the  first  recommendation  package.  The
decoration was properly processed within  AFI  36-2803  timelines.  In
view of  the  dates  of  the  actions  taken,  DPPPR  agrees  with  HQ
AFPC/DPPPWM’s assessment (Exhibit A) that the  closeout  date  of  the
decoration was changed to meet the 01E6 PECD so the decoration  points
could be used toward WAPS calculations.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB  asserts  there  is   no   conclusive   evidence   the
amended/resubmitted decoration was placed into official channels prior
to the date promotions were announced for cycle 01E6 and the applicant
became aware he had missed promotion  by  less  than  two  points.  To
approve this request would be unfair or inequitable 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  was  disapproved  by  the
Promotion Management Session at AFPC on 11 Dec 01 and again  on  1 Jul
02. DPPPWB concurs with this action and recommends denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 2 May 03 for review and comment 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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the AFCM 1OLC should be included for  consideration  in
the 01E6 promotion cycle. The original AFCM 1OLC package met both  the
PECD and selection announcement  date  requirements  for  cycle  01E6.
However, on 25 Jun 00, the group commander rejected and  returned  the
award package for downgrading to an AFAM. Another DECOR-6 package  for
the AFCM 1OLC was  not  submitted  until  1  Feb  01.  This  time  the
decoration was submitted as an  “Extended  Tour”  rather  than  a  PCA
award, and its closeout date was changed from 30 Jun 00 to 26 Jan  01.
The award’s new closeout date was beyond the 31 Dec 00 PECD, rendering
it ineligible for cycle 01E6 consideration. Selections for cycle  01E6
were announced on 7 Jun 01, and the applicant barely missed  promotion
to TSgt. The squadron commander did not request changing the  closeout
date to 30 Jun 00 until 9 Jul 01, nearly five months after the  second
DECOR-6, with the 26 Jan 01 closeout date, was signed and more than  a
month after the cycle 01E6 selections were announced. The  applicant’s
submission, including the 9 July 01 squadron letter, does not  provide
specifics  regarding   the   commanders’   intentions,   the   alleged
administrative errors, the “back and forth” and  “behind  the  scenes”
discussions, justification  attempts  and  mission  requirements  that
supposedly impacted the closeout dates and reasons  for,  as  well  as
processing of, this award. Further, as  the  applicant’s  presentation
does not persuasively rebut the HQ AFPC Promotion Management Section’s
two  earlier  disapprovals,  we  are  reluctant  to   overturn   those
determinations.  In  view  of   the   above,   we   agree   with   the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  not  sustained  his
burden of having suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.  Absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 3 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member
                 Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00668 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 25 Mar 03.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Apr 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair