RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01617
 					COUNSEL:  NONE
					HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The digital signature dates on his Air Medal second and third Oak 
Leaf Clusters (AM w/2 OLCs and AM w/3 OLCs) be changed so the 
decorations can be used in the promotion process for cycle 13E6.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Both the USCENTAF Form 1, Air Medal (AM) and Aerial Achievement 
Medal (AAM) Mission Information – Justification Sheet, and AF IMT 
3994, Recommendation for Decoration, Deployment/Contingency 
Operation, for the AM w/2 OLCs and AM w/3 OLCs reflect the dates 
of the resubmissions and not the original submittal dates of 
21 Apr 12 and 18 May 12, respectively.

The 651st Air Expeditionary Group (651 AEG) at Camp Bastion lost 
the two AMs and misfiled an AAM.  This was confirmed upon contact 
with the Personnel Support for  Contingency Operations (PERSCO) 
office who advised the error was the result of the deletion and/or 
corruption of the shared drive.  Additionally, the AM w/1 OLC 
should actually be the AM w/2 OLCs based on the dates of the 
combat missions.  These decorations resulted in a loss of 9 points 
towards the Calendar Year (CY) 2013 Technical Sergeant (TSgt) 
Promotion Cycle which would have put him over the cutoff.  He 
requested supplemental promotion consideration but the original 
records were digital and lost forever.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Jun 04 and is 
currently serving on active duty in the grade of Staff Sergeant 
(SSgt, E-5).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID was unable to verify an error 
or injustice exists in regard to the Report of Decoration Printout 
digital signature date on the applicant’s 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.  In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2803, Air Force 
Awards and Decorations, a recommendation is placed in official 
channels when the recommending official signs the recommendation 
(Decor 6 and justification) and a higher official in the nominee’s 
chain of command endorses it. 

DPSID contacted USAF Central Command (USAFCENT) on 12 May 14 and 
was advised the digital signature date on the AF IMT 3994 is the 
date used for the Report of Decoration Printout on the AM 
certificates.  The date the AF IMT 3994 is filled out and the 
digital signature date should match as the recommendation is 
normally officially endorsed (digitally signed) the date the form 
is completed. 

The AF IMT 3994 for the AM w/2 OLCs for the inclusive period of 
24 Mar 12 to 21 Apr 12 was received by the approval authority on 
8 Oct 13 and contains a digital signature date by the recommending 
official of 21 Apr 12.  It is highly improbable the applicant 
would have been submitted for a decoration the exact day of the 
close out date of the award.  As evidenced by the Report of 
Decoration printout on the applicant’s AM (basic) and AM w/1 OLC, 
the recommendation process is normally initiated approximately a 
month after the act/achievement occurred.  

The AF IMT 3994 for the AM w/3 OLCs for the inclusive period of 
5 May 12 to 18 May 12 was received by the approval authority on 
8 Oct 13 and contains a digital signature date of 20 Aug 13.  The 
recommending official dated the AF IMT on 18 May 12 instead of the 
current date, again, possibly to help support the recommendation 
as previously being submitted but was lost/deleted.  The close out 
date of the award of 18 May 12 is the same date placed on the AF 
IMT 3994.  Again, it is highly improbable that the applicant’s 
chain of command would have submitted the applicant for a 
decoration the exact day of the close out of award.  

A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s requests to 
include the decorations in the promotion process for cycle 13E6 as 
the decorations were not submitted until after selections were 
made for the promotion cycle.  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.

The applicant was considered and non-selected for promotion to the 
grade of TSgt for Cycle 13E6.  The score required for selection in 
his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 347.05 and his 
total weighted promotion score was 339.91.  If the two AM’s, worth 
3 points each, were counted in his total score, he would become a 
selectee for promotion.

Current Air Force promotion policy, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion 
Program, 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 must be before the date of selections 
for the cycle.  The PECD for Cycle 13E6 was 31 Dec 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.  Promotion 
selections for this cycle were made on 16 Jul 13 with a public 
release date of 1 Aug 13.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary we find no 
basis to grant 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 issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 


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-2014-01617 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Jun 14.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE dated 29 Jul 14.
        Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 14.