RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00316
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATED:  5 AUG 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect:

       a.    His Air Force Commendation  Medal  with  three  Oak  Leaf
Clusters (AFCM w/3 OLCs) be considered in the  promotion  process  for
cycle 05E7.

        b.     He  be  promoted  to  Master  Sergeant  (MSgt)  with  a
retroactive promotion effective date, date of rank (DOR) and pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The promotion office at  Nellis  submitted  an  incomplete  decoration
package the first time and the second submission was lost.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of technical sergeant (TSgt).

On 17 January 2005, a Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) was
prepared on the applicant for the purpose of recommending him for  the
AFCM w/3 OLCs.

Per Special Order G-080, dated 14 November  2005,  the  applicant  was
awarded the AFCM w/3 OLCs for the  period  25  July  2000  through  29
September 2004.  The AFAM w/3  OLCs  is  worth  three  points  in  the
computation of a servicemember’s total promotion score.

Promotion selections  for  the  fiscal  year  (FY)  2005  (05)  master
sergeant (E7) cycle were made on 6 June 2005  with  a  public  release
date of 16 June 2005.  The total weighted promotion score required for
selection in the  applicant’s  Controlled  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(CAFSC) was 344.42.  The applicant’s total  weighted  promotion  score
was 342.36.

The decoration was not considered in the promotion process  for  cycle
05E7 because the Décor 6 was  not  signed  and  placed  into  official
channels until 9 August 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denying the requested relief.  DPPPWB states
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).  The date of the DÉCOR-6 RDP  must  be
before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  The PECD  is
established for each promotion cycle  to  determine  which  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) or Chief Enlisted Manager (CEM) code the  member
will be considered for, as  well  as  which  performance  reports  and
decorations are to be used in the promotion consideration process.   A
decoration must be verified and documented that  it  was  placed  into
official channels prior to the selection date.

Furthermore, the special order awarding the applicant’s AFCM does  not
meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 05E7  cycle  because
the request for decoration  printout  date  was  9 August  2005--after
selections were made on 6 June 2005.  Policy precludes personnel  from
subsequently (after promotions selections) submitting  someone  for  a
decoration with a retroactive decoration effective date (closeout)  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 limit and conclusive evidence  the
recommendation was not acted upon through loss  or  inadvertence.   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.  Again, decorations that  are
resubmitted (because initial decoration was  downgraded,  lost,  etc.)
must be placed into official channels prior to the promotion selection
date.  There is no indication the applicant’s package was  resubmitted
and placed into official channels until 9 August 2005, which was after
the promotions for the 05E7 cycle were announced and he  became  aware
he missed promotion by less than two points.

AFPC/DPPPWB is aware of the impact this recommendation has had on  the
applicant’s  career,  the  fact  remains  the   decoration   was   not
reaccomplished and awarded until after selections for this cycle  were
made.  Furthermore, to approve the applicant’s request  would  not  be
fair or  equitable  to  others  in  the  same  situation  that  missed
promotion selection by a narrow margin and are not entitled to have an
“after the fact” decoration count in the promotion process.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
17 February 2006, for review  and  response.   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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or an injustice  to  warrant  the  applicant
promotion consideration to the  grade  of  master  sergeant  with  the
inclusion of the Air Force Commendation  Medal  with  Third  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (AFCM/3OLC).  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  its
rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  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.  In this respect we note the RDP was not put into official
channels until well after the selection date.   The  letter  from  the
applicant’s commander is duly noted; however,  we  do  not  find  this
statement,  alone,  sufficiently  compelling  to  warrant  adding  the
decoration  to  the  record   and   provide   supplemental   promotion
consideration.  Rather it appears to us that this statement is a well-
meaning, after-the-fact attempt to get the applicant  promoted.   Such
motivations  are  not  sufficient  to  support  a  finding  that   the
applicant’s record was incomplete at the time  selections  were  made.
To allow the applicant another opportunity for promotion consideration
would be unfair to  other  military  members  in  similar  situations.
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00316 in Executive Session on 6 April 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jan 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Feb 06.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 06.





                             JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                             Panel Chair