RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00026
                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 JUL 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) be  included  in  her  weighted
promotion score for the fiscal year (FY) 2006 (06) technical  sergeant
(E6) promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her AFAM should be considered for the 06E6 promotion cycle because the
Décor 6 was dated 22 September 2005 and  the  nomination  package  was
submitted before  the  Promotion  Eligibility  Promotion  Cutoff  Date
(PECD).

In support of her appeal, the applicant submitted memorandums,  Décor
6 dated 22 September 2005, Special Order (SO) GA-061 and the citation
to the AFAM.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in
the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt).

Promotion selections for the cycle 06E6 were made on 5 June 2006, with
a public release on 15 June 2006.  The total weighted promotion  score
required for selection in the applicant’s  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(AFSC) was 302.07.   The  applicant’s  total  weighted  promotion  was
301.98.

On 22 June 2006, a Décor 6, Recommendation  for  Decoration,  Printout
(RDP) was signed by the commander.

Per SO GA-061, dated 10 August 2006, the  applicant  was  awarded  the
AFAM for the period 10 May 2005 to 6 October 2005. The AFAM  is  worth
one point in the computation  of  a  servicemember’s  total  promotion
score.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the requested relief be denied.  They  state
that Air Force promotion policy 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 PECD, and the date of the Décor  6
must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  Each
promotion cycle has an established PECD which  is  used  to  determine
that AFSC or Chief Enlisted Manager (CEM)  Code  the  member  will  be
considered, as well as which performance reports and decorations  will
be used in the promotion consideration.

They further state review of  the  applicant’s  record  indicates  the
Décor 6 was signed by the commander on 22 June 2006.  This  decoration
does not meet the criteria for promotion credit  for  the  06E6  cycle
because  it  was  not  placed  into  official  channels  until   after
selections were made.   This  policy  was  initiated  to  specifically
preclude  personnel  from  (after  promotion  selections)   submitting
someone for a decoration with a retroactive decoration effective  date
so as to put them over the selection cutoff score.  Exceptions to this
policy are only  considered  when  the  servicemember  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.

DPPPWB is aware of the impact  this  recommendation  has  had  on  the
applicant’s career.  The fact remains that although the  Décor  6  was
printed on 22 September 2005, the original nomination package for  the
Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) was downgraded and resubmitted  as
an AFAM and  was  not  submitted,  signed  and  placed  into  official
channels until after the selections for the 06E6 cycle were  made.   A
decoration that is lost, or downgraded, must meet the same criteria as
the original decoration (placed into official channels  prior  to  the
date selections are made).  Approving the  applicant’s  request  would
not be fair or equitable to other servicemembers 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.
 In addition, AFPC/DPPPWM, denied the applicant’s request to have  the
decoration included in the promotion process  for  06E6  cycle  as  an
exception to policy.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB 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 2
February 2007, 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.   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  her  burden  that  she  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  06E6.   Although  the  applicant’s
Décor 6 was printed on 22  September  2005,  the  original  nomination
package for the AFCM was downgraded and resubmitted as an AFAM and was
not submitted, signed and placed into official  channels  until  after
selection for the promotion  cycles  were  made.   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-
2007-00026 in Executive Session on 29 March 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                       Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Jan 07.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Feb 07.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair