RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03945
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect the Air Force Achievement
Medal (AFAM) and his promotion test score be amended accordingly.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He missed promotion to technical sergeant by .25 points. After
reviewing his records he realized that his AFAM was not in his
records. He contacted his former supervisor who wrote and
submitted him for the medal. His former supervisor wrote a
letter to AFPC attesting to the submission and recommends AFPC
award the medal to the applicant.
He contacted the 60th Awards and Decorations office, but they
could not find any records of his medal. He was directed to the
U.S. Central Command (CENTAF) website to see if there were any
records of his medal; however, there were none.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular
Air Force.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the
Air Force, which are at Exhibit C and D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. After contacting CENTAF, the
original approval authority, they found that a recommendation for
the AFAM was submitted; however, CENTAF reviewed the submission
and the medal was disapproved. Further, although the applicants
immediate supervisor and unit commander submitted a
recommendation for the AFAM, the submission was considered by the
appropriate approval authority and was disapproved.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOE defers to DPSIDs recommendation to deny the request.
However, should the Board award him the AFAM and include it in
his promotion score for cycle 12E6, he would become a selectee
pending a favorable data verification check and the
recommendation of his commander.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 11 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 error or 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 Air Force offices of primary responsibilityand adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2012-03945 in Executive Session on 7 May 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Nov 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Dec 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 13.
Vice Chair
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 | CY2009 | BC-2008-01764
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01764 INDEX CODE: 131.00 Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His promotion sequence number (PSN) to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6), which would have incremented on 1 Dec 07 for cycle 07E6, be reinstated. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02326
Current Air Force promotion policy, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2, {sic – should be Rule 7} 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, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Although the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s near-miss for promotion, evidence...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03555
The governing instructions states that the most effective evidence consists of statements from the evaluators who signed the report or from other individuals in the rating chain when the report was signed. However, statements from the evaluators during the contested period are conspicuously missing. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance and demonstrated potential during the specified...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04004
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04004 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for promotion cycle 12E6. The applicant was considered and non- selected for promotion to E-6 during promotion cycle 12E6. The remaining relevant facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00478
Her DD Form 214 reflects her entitlement to the National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Training Ribbon, and the AFOR-Long Tour (AFOR-LT). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to change her rank and pay grade reflected on her DD Form 214. The ribbon was authorized to be awarded to Air Force and Air Force Reserve members credited with completion of an overseas tour on or after 1 Sep 80.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02522
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C & D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR notes the VMPF data printout provided by the applicant indicates an MSM was approved on 2 Jul 01 by Special Order (SO) GC-283; however, the official SO 283...
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...