RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05120
			COUNSEL:  NONE
   			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) received for the 
period of 15 Apr 11 to 30 Dec 11 be included for promotion 
consideration to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) for 
Cycle 12E6 [sic]. 

2.  He receives supplemental promotion consideration to the 
grade of TSgt for Cycle 12E6 [sic].   

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He missed promotion to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) 
for Cycle 12E5 by 0.3 points.  He learned he was submitted for 
an AFAM for the period of 24 Nov 08 thru 29 Mar 12 which was 
before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for Cycle 
12E5.

The decoration was submitted to the Military Personnel Section 
(MPS) on 29 Jun 12 and he was advised to request supplemental 
promotion consideration.  

AFPC denied his request for supplemental promotion consideration 
because the unit waited 6 months to request a Recommendation for 
Decoration Printout (DECOR 6) and he did not have any 
documentation to show he tried to correct the issue before 
selections were made.  He was unaware he was submitted for a 
decoration so he could not have tried to expedite the 
decoration. The DECOR 6 was dated one day prior to the promotion 
release.

He has since spoken to the group commander and the Chief Master 
Sergeant (CMSgt, E-9) who wrote the decoration and both have 
said they had every intention of the decoration being turned in 
sooner and for it to be considered for Cycle 12E5.   

In support of his requests, the applicant provides a letter from 
his commander, AFAM certificate, supplemental promotion request 
and DECOR 6.  



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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is on active duty in the grade of SSgt with a Date 
of Rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 Jan 14.  

According to an e-mail dated 22 Oct 13 from the Force Support 
Squadron to the applicant, AFPC/DPSOE disapproved his request 
for supplemental promotion consideration for Cycle 12E5.  The 
specific reason for the disapproval is per AFI 36-2502, Airman 
Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 2.8.3.1., a decoration 
must have a closeout date on or before the PECD and the 
commander’s recommendation date on the DECOR 6 must be before 
the date AFPC makes the selections for promotion.  There was 
also no signature or date on the DECOR 6.  

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have 
his AFAM for the period of 24 Nov 08 to 29 Mar 12 be used in the 
promotion process for Cycle 12E5. He has not provided conclusive 
evidence that it was approved and placed into official channels 
prior to 16 Jul 12 (the date selections were made).  In support 
of his request, he provided a blank DECOR 6 that was printed on    
4 Apr 13 (almost 9 months after selections were run).  This 
DECOR 6 does not indicate the type of decoration being 
submitted, its inclusive dates, the reason for the decoration 
and it was not signed by anyone.  

The applicant was considered and non-selected for promotion to 
the grade of SSgt during Cycle 12E5.  His total weighted 
promotion score was 267.50 and the score required for selection 
in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 267.83.  If the 
decoration worth 1 point is counted in the total score, he would 
become a select for promotion pending a favorable data 
verification check and the recommendation of his commander.  
Promotion selections for this cycle were made on 16 Jul 12 with 
a public release date of 2 Aug 12.  

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 of the DECOR 6 must be before the date of selections for 
the cycle in question.  The PECD for this cycle was 31 Mar 12.  
In addition, a decoration that a member claims was lost or 
downgraded must be fully documented and verified that it was 
placed into official channels prior to the selection date     
(16 Jul 12).  This policy was implemented on 28 Feb            
79 specifically to preclude personnel from subsequently (after 
promotion selections) submitting someone for a decoration with a 
retroactive decoration effective date so as to put them over the 
selection cutoff score.   

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was unaware a decoration was being written for him and was 
therefore unable to inquire about the status prior to selections 
being made for Cycle 12E5.  The close out date of his AFAM is  
29 Mar 12 which is prior to the PECD of 30 Mar 12 and the Décor 
6 was printed on 4 Apr 13.

He missed promotion by 0.3 points and discovered that a 
decoration was written that should have been in his records 
months earlier, if it had been in his records he would have been 
promoted.  The commander and superintendent have stated that 
they started the decoration in December and their intent was for 
it to be finished and submitted for inclusion in his record 
prior to selections for Cycle 12E5 on 16 Jul 12.
   
The Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) states he did not 
provide a completed and signed DECOR 6 with his package.  He 
notes members are not typically involved in the routing process 
for a decoration and like him are unaware one is being written 
until they are awarded it.  He repeatedly requested a copy of 
all completed and signed paper work but never received it.  He 
also requested a copy of the completed DECOR 6 from the MPS but 
they lost the signed copy so his only option was to provide a 
blank version.  

The inability of supervisors to complete his paperwork in a 
timely manner caused a serious injustice in preventing him from 
being promoted and he should not be penalized for something he 
had no control over and zero knowledge of. He requests the Board 
consider the statements made by those who wrote the decoration.   

The complete applicant’s response is at 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we are not persuaded that the AFAM should 
be included for promotion consideration to the grade of SSgt.  
While the applicant’s contentions and the statements provided by 
his squadron commander and superintendent are noted; he has not 
provided persuasive evidence to override the rationale provided 
by the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR).  
Further, changing the applicant’s records in the manner 
requested would provide him a promotion opportunity not afforded 
to others similarly situated.  Therefore, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no basis to grant 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-2013-05120 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

 , Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member
      
The following pertinent documentary was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 13, w/atchs.  
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Jan 14. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 14.   
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Mar 14.