RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01357
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His award of the Air Force Achievement Medal with first Oak Leaf
Cluster (AFAM w/1OLC), for the period 17 August 2005 to 13 April
2007, be accepted for the 2010 technical sergeant (E-6) (TSgt)
promotion cycle (10E6).
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His AFAM w/1OLC was awarded prior to the Promotion Eligibility
Cutoff Date (PECD). He missed promotion to TSgt by one point.
He did not have proof of the award in question at the time
because it was lost during his permanent change of station (PCS)
move.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
AFAM w/1OLC citation and order; and, his request for
supplemental promotion consideration.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants records are unavailable for review. Therefore,
the only information available is that which is provided by the
applicant and which is contained in the evaluation by the Air
Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the first time the
decoration in question (worth one point) would have been used in
the promotion process was cycle 08E6 to the grade of TSgt. At
the time of the DPSOE evaluation, the applicant had been
considered and non-selected for promotion to TSgt three times
(cycles 08E6, 09E6, and 10E6). He is eligible to be considered
for promotion by the 11E6 promotion cycle.
DPSOE indicates that in his request for supplemental promotion
consideration, the applicant acknowledges he received two AFAMs.
He also states that after testing for cycle 10E6 and reviewing
his record, he noticed only one AFAM was listed but assumed it
was the AFAM w/1OLC. Since he had two decorations, he should
have inquired at that time as to why only one was listed.
However, he admits to waiting until after the results were
released and he had missed promotion by less than one point.
Had he been verifying his record during the past two cycles, he
would have noticed that the decoration wasnt updated then
either.
DPSOE indicates that in accordance with Air Force Instruction
36-2502, paragraphs 2.7.6.2 and 2.8, airmen obtain and review
Data Verification Records (DVRs) along with score notices on the
virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF), review electronic
records in the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) and
senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO) selection folders to
ensure data is correct; and, must notify the appropriate
Military Personnel Service workcenter or agency for correction
of any errors. Supplemental promotion consideration will not be
granted if the error or omission appeared on/in the airmans
DVR, ARMS record, or SNCO selection folder and no corrective or
follow-up action was taken by the airman prior to the promotion
selection date for staff sergeant (E-5) through master sergeant
(E-7), and prior to the original evaluation board for senior
master sergeant (E-8) and chief master sergeant (E-9).
DPSOE indicates that all eligible members for cycle 10E6 also
received and/or had access to the Enlisted Promotion Fact Sheet
which specifically states the members responsibilities and
information about the DVR.
DPSOE states the applicants 11 March 2011 request for
supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 10E6
was denied by AFPC/DPSOE (Enlisted Promotions) on 21 March 2011
due to noncompliance with Air Force policy.
The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 17 June 2011, for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received no
response.
________________________________________________________________
_
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 office of primary responsibility
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no 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-2011-01357 in Executive Session on 8 December 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01357:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 May 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11.
Chair
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04076
She was notified by the Base Records Office that the basic AFAM was missing from her personnel records and she needed to provide a copy or her records would be changed to reflect the assumed discrepancy. The complete DPSOE 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 1 Apr 11, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03194
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C and D. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating the special order officially authorizing him award of the AFAM has not been provided or located within his official military record. The AFAM was no longer reflected in the promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04000
He states Air Force members do not receive the RDP when the award is presented. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to master sergeant during the 14E7 promotion cycle. Because the applicant did not take corrective action to ensure his decoration was properly updated in his record until four years after it was awarded and after he became aware he missed promotion by less than three points, it is recommend denying his request to use the AFCM in the promotion process...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03077
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03077 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt) by the Cycle 95E7 promotion board. The applicant's request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 95E7 was denied by AFPC/DPPPW (Enlisted Promotions) on 21 Aug 95 due to noncompliance with AF policy (AFI 36-2502,...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01346
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01346 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be rescored for promotion to master sergeant (Cycle 13E7) with the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), dated 18 February 2010. The first time the decoration would have been used in the promotion process was cycle 12E7 to master sergeant. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03312
His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) be corrected to 31 Jul 2001 (Administratively Corrected). In a letter dated 10 Jan 2014, AFPC/DPSOE advised the applicant his DOR to the grades of SrA, SSgt, TSgt and MSgt were administratively corrected and that he would receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the May 2014 Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Supplemental Promotion Board. After a thorough review of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05081
The applicant is under the misconception that as long as the decoration into administrative channels prior to the promotion cutoff date, the approved decorations would be used in the promotion process for that cycle. As such, decorations and promotions are separate processes. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence submitted in support of his appeal, we believe that credible evidence has been provided to show that his six Air Medals (2OLC/3OLC/4OLC/5OLC/6OLC and 7/OLC) were placed into...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that a servicing MPF fails to respond to an official AFPC request for required documents on eligible members should not negatively impact any member’s full promotion consideration. The Air Force states that the citation for the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05120
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 PECD and the date of the DECOR 6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04722
She requested supplemental consideration for selection to E-6, but her request was denied and she was told to file a claim with the Air Force Board of Corrections of Military Records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating...