RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02180
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for the period 1 December 1996
- 15  November  2000  be  considered  for  cycle  01E6  (promotion  to
technical sergeant).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The record is in error because the cited award met the requirements to
be placed into official channels.  Per AFP 36-2241, Volume l, 13.24.2,
any person, other than the individual being recommended, having  first
hand knowledge of the act, achievement or  service  may  recommend  an
individual for a decoration.  Per  AFI  36-2803  a  recommendation  is
placed in official channels when the recommending official  signs  the
recommendation and a higher official in the chain of command  endorses
it.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits  a  Special  Order,  which
includes the Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) date of  12  August
2000, AF Form 2224, Decoration, AF Form 614,  waps  score  notice  and
email traffic.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:


Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade
of staff sergeant.


The applicant’s total promotion score for cycle 01E6  was  328.49  and
the score required for selection  in  his  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(AFSC) was 329.23.

Applicant’s request that the contested decoration be included  in  the
promotion process for  cycle  01E6  as  an  exception  to  policy  was
disapproved by the Promotion Management Section at AFPC.

Applicant was selected for promotion to technical sergeant  for  cycle
04E6, with a promotion  sequence  number  of  2939,  which  should  be
incremented approximately 1 January 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB states this decoration does  not  meet  the  criteria  for
promotion   credit   during   cycle   01E6   because   it   was    not
reworked/resubmitted  until  late  July/early   August   2001,   after
selections were made on 29 May and announced on 7 June 2001.  There is
no  conclusive  evidence  the  decoration  was  placed  into  official
channels prior to the date promotions were announced  for  cycle  01E6
and the applicant became aware that he had missed  promotion  by  less
than one point.  As a matter of fact, the applicant provides documents
to the contrary.  To  approve  this  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
this cycle as an exception to policy was disapproved by the  Promotion
Management Section at the Air Force  Personnel  Center.   They  concur
with this decision.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states as  current  Air  Force  promotion  policy  mandates,
before a decoration is credited for a specific  promotion  cycle,  the
close date of the decoration  must  be  on  or  before  the  promotion
eligibility  cut-off  date  (PECD),  and  the  date  of  the  DÉCOR-6,
Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the  date
of selections for the  cycle  in  question.   However,  the  AFPC/DPPW
message, dated 12 October 2001, denying  him  promotion  consideration
under a supplemental board, recognizes there are occasional  instances
of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and  administrative  delays  in
decoration  recommendation  processing.   Additionally,  AFI  36-2502,
Table 2.2, Note 2, states that “if the date of the  special  order  is
the month selections are made or later, send the  following  documents
to HQ AFPC/DPPPWM Special Order, citation, décor 6, amendments if any,
and documentation when decoration was placed into  official  channels.
The AFPC message and AFI  36-2502  thereby  concedes  that  individual
cases do exist where Air Force members are wronged  by  administrative
oversights relating to the decoration process.

AFPC/DPPPWB infers that this decoration does not meet the criteria for
promotion credit during cycle 01E6 because it is  their  position  the
decoration was not resubmitted until after selections were made on  29
May 2001.  But in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2803,  paragraph  3.1,  a
decoration is considered to have been 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.
His unit records were checked out at  the  military  personnel  flight
(MPF) on 13 April 2001 by SrA P--- (orderly  room  personnel).   These
records were checked out for  the  resubmission  of  the  commendation
medal.  This  was  done  almost  two  months  before  the  release  of
promotion results.  The  decoration  was  rewritten  by  the  squadron
superintendent (AFP 36-2241 Volume 1, 13.24.2 any person,  other  than
the individual being recommended, having firsthand  knowledge  of  the
act, achievement,  or  service  may  recommend  an  individual  for  a
decoration) and endorsed by the squadron commander.  As  evidenced  by
the 21 December 2001 email.  The commander was  under  the  assumption
that because she was his supervisor she  did  not  count  as  official
channels.  At that time neither she nor he were aware of what AFI  36-
2803 considered as official channels.  The commander had one  sentence
deleted about CDC pass rate and one added to mention  the  development
of a CBT data base, however, this does not detract from the fact  that
the decoration had already been endorsed several weeks before  results
were released.

AFPC/DPPPWB calls this decoration an “after the fact” decoration,  but
based  on  the  RDP,  the  accompanying   citation   and   the   email
documentation this is not merely an “after the fact” decoration.   The
original decoration dated 2 December 1996 - 2  August  2000  was  sent
back  for  reasons  discussed  in  the   email   documentation.    The
resubmission process began in  April  of  2001  and  the  rewrite  was
delayed through no fault of his  own.   To  call  this  decoration  an
“after  the  fact”  decoration  contradicts  the  evidence  and  email
documentation provided.  This  decoration  was  in  the  works  months
before promotion results were released.  To  call  it  an  “after  the
fact” decoration questions the integrity of not only himself but  also
the squadron commander, group commander and the  wing  commander.   He
would never have pursued this, as he has maintained throughout, if the
decoration did not exist.  To deny him promotion for  the  01E6  cycle
would not be fair or equitable to him and  it  would  question  AFPC’s
system   that    acknowledges    that    occasional    instances    of
miscommunication,  misunderstanding,  and  administrative  delays   in
decoration recommendation processing do occur.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.   After
reviewing the evidence of  record,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the
contested decoration was not placed into official  channels  prior  to
the date promotions were announced for cycle 01E6.  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 16 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Jul 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 10 Sep 04.




                             MARILYN M. THOMAS
                             Vice Chair