RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00904
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM), the Air  Medal  (AM)  and  the  AM
First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC) be used in  the  promotion  process  for
cycle 04E6.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The decorations were placed into official channels prior to the public
release date, should be counted for the promotion  process  for  cycle
04E6 and he should have been selected for promotion during this cycle.

In support of his request, the  applicant  submitted  two  Letters  of
Support, a series  of  emails,  Supplemental  Promotion  Consideration
Request and Denial Letters, a copy of his  Weighted  Airman  Promotion
System (WAPS) Score Notice, and a copy of the three  decorations  with
background documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade  of  technical  sergeant.   Applicant  was  considered  and  not
selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant by the  04E6
promotion cycle.  His total score was 303.4 and the score required for
selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 312.13.

The applicant was selected for promotion to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant for the  05E6  promotion  cycle  and  his  date  of  rank  is
1 October  2005.   The  applicant   requested   supplement   promotion
consideration and his request was disapproved on 8 March 2006, by  the
Promotion Management Section at the AFPC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPWB recommends denial.  DPPWB  states  the  current  Air  Force
promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion  Program,  Table  2.2,
Rule 5, Note 2), 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 Décor-6, Request for Decoration Printout  (RDP),  must  be
before the date  of  selections  for  the  cycle  in  question.   Each
promotion cycle has an established PECD which  is  used  to  determine
what Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) or chief Enlisted  Manager  (CEM)
Code, for which the member  will  be  considered,  as  well  as  which
performance reports and decorations will  be  used  in  the  promotion
consideration process.  The PECD for the  cycle  in  question  was  31
December 2003.  In addition, a decoration that  a  member  claims  was
lost, downgraded, etc., must be fully documented and verified that  it
was placed into official channels prior to the  selection  date   (not
the public release date as applicant states)

DPPPWB states that in accordance  with  AFI  36-2803,  The  Air  Force
Awards and Decorations Program, para 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.  The AAM was not placed  into
official channels until 22 June  2004  (see  USCENTAF  Form  1).   The
recommendation decoration printout (RDP) date is 6 July 2004, and  the
decoration was awarded  2  September  2004.   The  basic  AM  was  not
approved and placed into official channels until 22  June  2004.   The
RDP date is 6 July 2004 and the  decoration  was  awarded  11  January
2005.  The AM 1OLC was initially submitted 3 May 2004, but disapproved
by USCENTAF on 1 November 2004.  It was not resubmitted  and  approved
until 13 June 2005, almost a year after selections were made for  this
cycle.  None of these decorations  meet  the  criteria  for  promotion
credit during the o4E6 cycle as they were  all  placed  into  official
channels after selections were made on 17 June 2004.

According to DPPWB, this policy was initiated  28  February  1979,  to
specifically preclude personnel from subsequently  submitting  someone
for a decoration with a retroactive decoration effective date,  so  as
to put them over the selection cutoff score.  Exceptions to the  above
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  in  military
channels within the prescribed time limit and conclusive evidence  the
recommendation was  not  acted  upon  through  loss  or  inadvertence.
Again, resubmitted decorations must be placed into  official  channels
prior to the promotion selection date.  There is no  indication  these
packages were placed into official channels until after promotions for
the 04E6 cycle were announced 17 June 2004 and  the  applicant  became
aware he missed promotion by less than nine points.

After an extensive review of the circumstances of this case to include
documentation the  applicant  has  provided  there  is  no  conclusive
evidence the decoration was submitted before the  date  of  selections
for  the  04E6  cycle.   DPPWB  states  the   decorations   were   not
accomplished/reaccomplished and awarded until after selection for this
cycle were made.  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 DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
14 Apr 06, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 injustice.  After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the  documentation  provided,  the  Board  notes
neither the AAM, the AM nor the  AM  1OLC  were  placed  into  official
channels prior to the public release date of the 04E6  promotion  cycle
and none of these decorations met the criteria for promotion credit for
that cycle.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations
of the Air Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2006-
00904 in Executive Session on 25 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
            Mr. James L. Sommer, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 31 Mar 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.





                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair