RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02258
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) awarded to him for the  period  14
Apr 98 to 10 Feb 01 be  included  in  his  Weighted  Airman  Promotion
System (WAPS) score for promotion cycle 02E7 and  he  be  promoted  to
master sergeant (MSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The MSM that he was awarded in Dec 02 was submitted by his  supervisor
in Jun 01, approximately six months prior to the Promotion Eligibility
Cutoff Date (PECD) for  cycle  02E7,  but  due  to  an  administrative
oversight was not included in his  records  until  Dec  02.   He  only
missed promotion to MSgt by .39 points during cycle 02E7.  Had his MSM
been processed in a timely manner, he would have been promoted.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  the
documentation included with his  request  for  supplemental  promotion
consideration to HQ AFPC/DPPPWM and a copy of their disapproval.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 23 Apr 84.   His
last five Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) reflect overall  ratings
of “5.”  He was considered but not  selected  for  promotion  to  MSgt
during cycle 02E7, missing the selection cutoff by .39 points (an  MSM
is worth 5 points).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Current Air
Force policy dictates that before  a  decoration  is  credited  for  a
specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must  be
on or before the PECD, and the date  of  the  Request  for  Decoration
Printout (RDP), DÉCOR-6, must be before the date of selections in  the
cycle in question.  The PECD for cycle 02E7 was  31  Dec  01  and  the
applicant’s decoration was not placed into official channels until Dec
02.  Additionally,  a  decoration  that  a  member  claims  was  lost,
downgraded, etc., must be fully documented and verified  showing  that
it was placed into official channels before the selection date.   This
policy was established in Feb 79 to  specifically  preclude  personnel
from subsequently (after promotion selections) submitting someone  for
a decoration with a retroactive effective date (close out)  so  as  to
put them over the selection cutoff score.  Exceptions to  this  policy
are only considered when the airman can support a previous  submission
with documentation or statements including  conclusive  evidence  that
the recommendation was officially placed into military channels within
the prescribed time limits and conclusive evidence that the decoration
was not acted upon due to  loss  or  inadvertence.   A  decoration  is
considered  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 date of  preparation  on
the DÉCOR-6 for the applicant’s award is 3 Dec 02,  so  it  could  not
have been signed prior to the date selections were made on 17 Jun 02.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responds by indicating his  disagreement  with  the  Air
Force evaluation.  He states that the only evidence he  has  that  his
decoration was not an “after the fact” submission is a  letter  signed
by his direct supervisor at  the  time,  a  commissioned  field  grade
officer  certifying  that  he  submitted  the  decoration  under   the
guidelines given him by  the  Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF).   He
believes that  the  sworn  word  of  an  Air  Force  officer  is  both
conclusive and convincing evidence.  Additionally, he  discussed  both
his EPR and  decoration  with  his  supervisor  and  departed  on  his
humanitarian reassignment with the expectation that a decoration would
be submitted.  He has every reason to believe his supervisor  when  he
states that he did submit the MSM to the MPF.

The applicant’s complete submission 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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  The period of the applicant’s  award
makes it  clear  that  it  could  have  been  processed  in  time  for
consideration during promotion cycle 02E7.   However,  the  amount  of
time taken to submit the award, based on the available documents, does
not violate Air Force policy.  Although the applicant has  provided  a
statement from his supervisor that he submitted the decoration well in
advance of the date of promotion selections, we believe the absence of
concrete proof must be given the greatest weight in  this  case.   Air
Force policy  regarding  this  type  of  situation  is  clear  and  is
essential  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the   promotion   system.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_______________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
02258 in Executive Session on 6 October 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
      Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 03.




                                   MARILYN THOMAS
                                   Panel Chair