RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02893
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) Third Oak Leaf Cluster 
(3OLC) for the period 1 Jul 2011 through 1 Dec 2011 be considered 
in the promotion process for cycle 12E7.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His organization, the 937th Training Group (937 TRG) and the 502d 
Force Support Group (502 FSG) each requested a “Recommendation 
for Decoration Printout (Décor-6).”

His commander completed the Décor-6 recommending him for a 
decoration before 31 Dec 2011; the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff 
Date (PECD).  However, due to personnel changeover, his 
decoration package was lost.  The commander had a Permanent 
Change of Station (PCS) and the first sergeant retired.  
Nevertheless, when they were informed the AFCM had not been 
completed, they provided statements explaining the lateness of 
the medal package and the decoration package was re-submitted in 
May 2012.

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.  AFPC denied consideration stating 
that in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion 
Programs, a separate Décor-6 must submitted for each decoration.

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 has been placed in 
official channels.  Moreover, according to AFI 36-2502, the 
decoration closeout date must be on or before the PECD.  He 
provided documentation from the commander and first sergeant 
showing that the DeCOR6 was approved and in official channels 
prior to the PECD.  He should not be punished due to an 
administrative oversight.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of statements from his commander, first 
sergeant, and force management specialist, Air Force Instruction 
excerpts, electronic communiqués, AFCM citation and Décor-6.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the Décor-6 provided by the applicant, on 31 Mar 
2011, his commander recommended him for a decoration.

On 10 Apr 2013, a corrected copy (inclusive dates) of the AFCM 
2OLC for the period 8 Feb 2010 to 30 Jun 2011, with a “Given 
Under My Hand” date of 7 Jun 2012 was placed in the applicant’s 
records.

On 10 Apr 2013, a corrected copy (inclusive dates) of the AFCM 
3OLC for the period 1 Jul 2011 to 1 Dec 2011, with a “Given Under 
My Hand” date of 30 Nov 2012  was placed in the applicant’s 
records.

On 28 May 2013, the applicant accepted his promotion to the rank 
of Master Sergeant (MSgt, E-7).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  DPSOE states that the applicant 
provides no supporting documentation or conclusive evidence that 
the decoration was in official channels prior to selects being 
released for cycle 12E7.  The applicant was considered and non-
selected for promotion to the rank of MSgt during cycle 12E7.  He 
received a decoration score of 8.00 and a total score of 317.36.  
The score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code 
(AFSC) was 321.04.

On 4 Dec 2012, the applicant requested supplemental consideration 
to have two AFCMs included in the 12E7 promotion process that 
were not used during the initial promotion process.  DPSOE 
approved his request for one of the decorations, but disapproved 
the other since the inclusive dates on both citations overlapped 
and the same Décor-6 was used to submit both awards.  The AFCM 
(2OLC) had inclusive dates of 8 Feb 2010 through 30 Dec 2011, and 
the AFCM (3OLC) had inclusive dates of 1 Apr 2010 through 1 Dec 
2011.  The applicant remained a “non-select” for promotion as the 
one AFCM (worth 3 points) increased his total score to 320.36; 
however, this was still below the promotion cut-off.

There are two separate and distinct policies regarding the 
approval of a decoration and the credit of a decoration for 
promotion purposes.  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 PECD, and the 
date the Décor-6 was signed must be before the date of selections 
for the cycle in question.  In accordance with AFI 36-2803, 
paragraph 3.1, a decoration is considered to have been placed 
into official channels when the Décor-6 is signed by the 
initiating official and indorsed by a higher official in the 
chain of command.  The Décor-6 for the AFCM (3OLC) was not signed 
until 30 Nov 2012.  Selections for cycle 12E7 were made on 7 May 
2012.

The applicant has since petitioned to have the inclusive dates 
changed on both decorations.  His request was approved and the 
dates were changed effective 10 Apr 2013.  The AFCM (2OLC) now 
has inclusive dates of 8 Feb 2010 through 30 Jun 2011, and the 
AFCM (3OLC) has inclusive dates of 1 Jul 2011 through 1 Dec 2011.  
This however does not entitle the applicant to supplemental 
consideration as the correction was not made until 10 Apr 
2013 and the corrected decoration was not a matter of record at 
the time selections were made (7 May 2012).

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 Oct 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit 
D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that 
through no fault of the applicant’s, the contested award was not 
properly processed in time for it to be considered by promotion 
cycle 12E7.  In this respect, we note the statements from the 
applicant’s former first sergeant and commander who both indicate 
the applicant’s original decoration submission was placed in 
official channels in Dec 2011.  However, due to various manning 
changes, the commander's PCS and the first sergeant’s retirement, 
the initial decoration package was lost.  We note the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility recommends denial stating the 
applicant has not provided supporting documentation or conclusive 
evidence that the decoration was placed in official channels 
prior to the selects being run and released for cycle 12E7.  
However, it is our opinion that this was not an after-the-fact 
award based upon his nonselection for promotion.  Due to numerous 
administrative shortfalls the award simply “fell through the 
cracks,” and we believe that the applicant should not be harmed 
based on these errors.  Therefore we find the evidence presented 
in this case sufficient to warrant relief.   Accordingly, we 
recommend his records be corrected as 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 the 
Recommendation for Decoration Printout (Décor-6) for award of the 
Air Force Commendation Medal, Third Oak Leaf Cluster, covering 
the period 1 July 2011 through 1 December 2011 was signed by the 
commander on 1 May 2012 rather than 30 November 2012.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for 
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 12E7, with the Air 
Force Commendation Medal, Third Oak Leaf Cluster included in his 
record.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to 
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and 
unrelated to the issues involved in this application that would 
have rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion, such 
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a 
final determination of the individual’s qualifications for the 
promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

?
The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 3 Apr 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member
      
All members voted to correct the record as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2013-
02893:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 20 May 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Aug 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 2013.




								
								Panel Chair