RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00919
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 September 2007
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Based on the addition of the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf
Cluster (AFCM, 1 OLC), and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), he would have
been selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant prior to his
retirement since he missed promotion by 1 point or so.
In support of his appeal, applicant submits an AFPC/DPPPRA letter
indicating that they were able to verify his entitlement to the AFCM, 1
OLC, and the VSM, with One Bronze Service Star.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
29 September 1959. He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical
sergeant (E-6) with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 June 1974. He was awarded
the AFCM, 1 OLC, per Hq USAFE Special Order GA-149, dated 25 August 1976.
Effective 30 September 1979, he was relieved from active duty and retired
effective 1 October 1979 in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). He had
completed 20 years of active service.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be time barred; however, should the
Board choose to waive the applicant’s failure to timely file, they
recommend denial based on a lack of official documentation. AFPC/DPPPWB
states, in part, that applicant has not filed within the three-year time
limitation and by doing so, has caused prejudice to the Air Force. In this
regard, AFPC/DPPPWB notes that relevant records have been destroyed or are
no longer available, memories have failed, and witnesses are unavailable.
Since promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years,
they are unable to verify which medals were considered in the promotion
process during the timeframe in question. Since he was awarded the AFCM on
27 July 1973 and the AFCM, 1 OLC, on 28 July 1976, they must assume the
weighted points for these decorations were included during the applicable
promotion cycles.
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16
September 2005, for review and comment, within 30 days. However, as of
this date no response has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. We note that since promotion history
files are only maintained for a period of 10 years, the office of primary
responsibility has been unable to verify which medals were considered in
the promotion process during the timeframe in question. However, based
upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs
and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that since he was
awarded the AFCM on 27 July 1973 and the AFCM, 1 OLC, on 28 July 1976, the
weighted points for these decorations were included during the applicable
promotion cycles. Further, since no weighted points are assigned to the
VSM, it had no impact on his promotion consideration. 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-2005-00919
in Executive Session on 10 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 July 2005, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Sep 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 05.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03136
On 30 September 2005, AFPC/DPPPWM, denied applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 05E7 based on the AFCM, 3 OLC, because the decoration was misplaced, corrected, and then resubmitted for approval after selections were made for the cycle. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that for a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00316
In order for a decoration to be eligible to be considered in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date and the Recommendation for Decoration Printout must be before the date of selection for the cycle. From the evidence of record, the applicant’s decoration does not meet the criteria to be considered for promotion consideration for cycle 05E7. The letter from the applicant’s commander is duly noted; however, we do not...
There is no evidence the decoration was submitted before the date of selections for cycle 00E7. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRRP states, in part, that if the Board determines the applicant should be promoted to the grade of master sergeant effective 1 October 2000, they will correct his records to reflect that he held the grade of master sergeant on his last day of active duty and was retired in the grade of master sergeant effective 1 January 2001....
For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle, the close-out 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. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) 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 promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00233
His request for supplemental promotion consideration was denied because the order date on the DECOR6 was after the cutoff for cycle 03E5. Applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration during cycle 03E5 was denied by AFPC on 20 August 2004, since the AFAM, 1 OLC, recommendation was not placed into official military channels until after selections for cycle 03E5 were announced. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01039
Promotion selections for the cycle 05E7 were made on 6 June 2005. Before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff 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. Applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration based on the AFCM, 2OLC, was denied by AFPC because the resubmitted...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01560
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01560 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX R. COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 NOV 07 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for cycle 05E6. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the last promotion cycle the applicant was eligible for consideration to the grade of technical sergeant prior to his retirement date was 93A6 with promotions effective 1 Aug 92 – 1 Jul 93. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2), the directive in effect at the time,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03954
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03954 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 Jun 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) (Second Oak Leaf Cluster) (2OLC) awarded to him for the period 1 Apr 98 to 26 Apr 02 be used in the promotion process for cycle 05E7...
Director I/ Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01544 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (20LC), for the period 10 Jul 91 to 1 Jul 96, be considered in the promotion process for cycle 9737 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). DPPPWB states that there is no tangible evidence the...