RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04722 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her official records be corrected to reflect the following: 

 

1. The date on her 21 Jul 11 Air Force Commendation Medal 
(AFCM) be changed to 15 Nov 09. 

 

2. She was selected for promoted to the rank of Technical 
Sergeant during the 2010 E-6 promotion cycle. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her supervisor neglected to put her in for a decoration when she 
left Permanent Change of Station (PCS) from Kunsan AB, Korea on 
15 Oct 09. She was ultimately awarded the AFCM on 21 Jul 11; 
however, in the intervening period, she met the FY10 E-6 
Promotion Board and missed being selected by 1.15 points. The 
AFCM is worth three points toward promotion. 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. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
Promotion Supplemental Request with supporting documentation, 
multiple e-mails concerning the status of her award, and her 
request for supplemental promotion consideration. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the 
rank of technical sergeant (E-6). 

 

 


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 there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant believes her decoration 
covering the period 7 Oct 08 through 15 Oct 09 should have been 
considered in the promotion process for cycle 10E6 because of 
the circumstances which caused the delay in its award. If the 
decoration (worth three points) is counted in the applicant’s 
total score for cycle 10E6, she would become a selectee for 
promotion, pending a favorable data verification check and 
recommendation from her commander. Promotion selections for 
this cycle were made on 2 Jun 10. Current Air Force promotion 
policy (AFI 36-2502, Airmen Promotion/Demotion Programs, Table 
2.2, Rule 7, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is 
credited for a specific promotion cycle, the date of the DÉCOR 6 
must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. 
Each promotion cycle has an established promotion eligibility 
cutoff date (PECD) which is used to determine which performance 
reports and decorations will be used in the promotion 
consideration. The PECD for the cycle in question was 31 Dec 
09. Although the signature date by her supervisor reflects 
1 Oct 09, the decoration was not placed into official channels 
until sometime after 24 Aug 10 when the applicant’s supervisor 
admitted he had not submitted the decoration before he PCS’d in 
Oct 09. 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. The fact is the decoration was not submitted until after 
selections for this cycle were made (but within the 3-year 
timeframe required by decoration policy). To approve the 
applicant’s 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. This applicant was 
selected for promotion to E-6 during the FY11 E-6 selection 
cycle. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence 
of an error or injustice. In accordance with AFI 36-2803, The 
Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, Chapter 3, decoration 
recommendations are to be submitted as soon as possible 
following the act, achievement, or service. A recommendation 
must be entered into official channels within two years and 
awarded within three years of the act, achievement or service 
performed. A recommendation is placed in official channels when 


the recommending official signs the recommendation (DÉCOR 6, 
Request for Decoration Printout, and justification), and a 
higher official in the chain of command endorses it. The 
applicant provided e-mail traffic, dated 24 Aug 10, in which the 
recommending official states he did not submit the applicant for 
a decoration upon her departure from Korea due to an oversight. 
According to the provided e-mail traffic, the recommending 
official originally submitted the DÉCOR 6, signed and dated 
7 Sep 10, but then later resubmitted the DÉCOR 6, and back dated 
it to 15 Oct 09. Although the recommendation was not submitted 
in a timely manner, the recommendation was placed into official 
channels within two years of the act, achievement, or service 
performed and awarded within three years in accordance with the 
AFI guidance. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Feb 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. Therefore, in 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-04722 in Executive Session on 5 Jun 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 23 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair