AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-05081
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His six Air Medals, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC), third OLC,
fourth OLC, fifth OLC, sixth OLC and seventh OLC, be added to
his records and he be given supplemental promotion consideration
for promotion cycle 10E6.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Between February and August of 2009, he had several qualifying
flights for the Air Medal. He submitted the proper
documentation to the squadron Resource Management section. To
the best of his knowledge, the packages were processed, as this
was the normal operating procedure. There were several extra
duty Airmen assigned to track the process.
The first delay occurred from the submission date to the first
quarter of 2010 and to his knowledge they were processed.
Between deployments and temporary duty assignments, he did not
have proper access to discover the lost documentation. After a
couple of queries, he was informed the documentation was lost
and needed to be resubmitted.
Due to a number of unfortunate incidents, the AM’s were not
approved until 2011. The flights were completed in 2009. He
believes the record is in error as his AM’s should have been
included with his 10E6 promotion cycle, elevating his score
above the cutoff.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
DD Form 214s, Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
were
created
and
packages
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is active duty Air Force serving in the grade of
staff sergeant.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described
in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary
responsibility which is at Exhibit B. Therefore, there is no
need to recite these facts in the record of proceedings.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The applicant was considered and
non-selected for promotion cycle 10E6. His total decoration
score was 7 points and his total weighted score was 298.31. The
promotion cutoff for promotion selection in his Air Force
Specialty was 304.95. Had the decorations, worth 3 points each,
counted in the applicant’s total score, he would have been
selected for promotion for that cycle.
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. However, policy dictates, they must be placed into
official channels prior to the selection date, 2 June 2010. AFI
36-2803 states a decoration is considered to have been placed in
official channels when the decoration recommendation is signed
by the initiating official and endorsed by a higher official in
the chain of command.
The applicant submits USCENTAF Form 1, for six AMs, these are
not the final, officially approved citations and only signed by
the applicant. The tracker reflects the AMs were not approved
by AFCENT until 21 March through 4 May 2011, well after the
selections were made for that promotion cycle. The applicant
contends it took over a year for the decoration package to reach
the commanders desk, however, decoration policy states that
someone can be awarded a decoration within 2 years of the event
as long as it is awarded by 3 years. As such, decorations and
promotions are separate processes. A decoration is one weighted
factor and should not be awarded purely for promotion points.
There is no conclusive evidence these decorations were in
official channels and signed by the approval authority before
the date of selections for cycle 10E6. To approve the
applicant’s request would not be fair or equitable to many
others in the same situation as the applicant who miss promotion
selection by a narrow margin and are not entitled to have an
after the fact decoration count in the promotion cycle.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
submitted
2
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 29 February 2012, 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an injustice to warrant relief. 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 official channels in sufficient time to be considered in the
10E6 promotion cycle. It appears that due to administrative
errors beyond the applicant’s control, the recommendations were
lost somewhere in the administrative process. We took note of the
OPR’s position on this matter; however, we believe the applicant
should not be penalized for the administrative errors and that the
benefit of doubt in this matter should be resolved in his favor.
Therefore, we recommend that his records be corrected to the
extent indicated below.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his Air
Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster for the period 28 February 2009
to 31 March 2009, Air Medal, Third Oak Leaf Cluster for the
period 1 April 2009 to 28 April 2009, Air Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf
Cluster for the period 30 April 2009 to 27 May 2009, Air Medal,
Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster for the period 28 May 2009 to 25 June
2009, Air Medal, Sixth Oak Leaf Cluster for the period 26 June
2009 to 15 July 2009 and Air Medal, Seventh Oak Leaf Cluster for
the period of 16 July 2009 to 7 August 2009, were placed into
official channels on 1 June 2010.
It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant
for promotion cycle 10E6.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and
3
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would
have rendered the applicant ineligible for this promotion, such
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a
final determination on the individual’s qualifications for the
promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to any higher grade, immediately after such
promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was
promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by
the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay,
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-05081 in Executive Session on 19 June 2012, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 5 Dec 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dtd 10 Feb 12.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 29 Feb 12.
Panel Chair
4
For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, 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 o r before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01617
DPSID was unable to verify an error or injustice exists in regard to the Report of Decoration Printout digital signature date on the applicants AM w/2 OLCs or AM w/3 OLCs nor were they able to verify an error or injustice with the AM w/1 OLCs. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants requests to include the decorations in the promotion process for cycle 13E6 as the decorations were not submitted until after selections...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00233
His request for supplemental promotion consideration was denied because the order date on the DECOR6 was after the cutoff for cycle 03E5. Applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration during cycle 03E5 was denied by AFPC on 20 August 2004, since the AFAM, 1 OLC, recommendation was not placed into official military channels until after selections for cycle 03E5 were announced. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB...
For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, 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 promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01357
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). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01165
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/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to have his BSM used for supplemental promotion consideration to E-9 for promotion cycle 10E9. The applicant provides no documentation reflecting that he attempted to have the MSM upgraded anytime between its original award date in...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that current 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 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) , must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. After reviewing the evidence of...
The applicant’s commander states that after the applicant was selected for an assignment, an RDP was requested on the applicant and a decoration recommendation was submitted. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In support of the applicant’s request, her First Sergeant has provided a statement indicating the commander’s letter clearly states the intent was there to recommend the applicant for the decoration prior...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01039
Promotion selections for the cycle 05E7 were made on 6 June 2005. Before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out 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. Applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration based on the AFCM, 2OLC, was denied by AFPC because the resubmitted...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02893
Prior to submitting his request to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFCMR), he submitted a supplemental promotion consideration package to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) promotions section requesting that both decorations be considered. He spoke with the Base Level Awards and Decoration Element, researched the Air Education and Training Command policy and AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program, and found the Décor-6 reflects when it...