AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL241g98  - 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03061 

_ _ . -  

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

- 

-I 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

1.  He be promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant  (E-9) 
with all back pay and allowances; or in the alternative, his 
corrected record receive supplemental promotion consideration to 
the grade of E-9 beginning with cycle 9399. 
2.  The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) rendered for the period 
16 January 1992 through 5 November 1992 be upgraded in Block 11, 
Evaluation of Performance, Item 7, Communication Skills; or in 
the alternative, the EPR be declared void and removed from his 
records. 
3.  He be awarded an Air Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM); or in 
the alternative, the Air Force Achievement Medal  (AFAM) for the 
$113,000 renovation of supply facilities he accomplished in June 
of 1991. 
4.  He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal  (MSM) for the 
period 7 July 1990 through 6  July 1993 based on completion of an 
extended tour. 

* -  

5.  The date of the Air Force Commendation Medal, Third Oak Leaf 
Cluster (AFCM, 3 OLC) awarded for the period 15 July 1993 through 
30 September 1993 be backdated to the date of his return from 
that TDY so that it is considered in the appropriate promotion 
cycle. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The adverse actions taken against him were  in reprisal for him 
notifying his chain of command of mismanagement, fraud, waste and 
abuse in the Material  Storage and Distribution Branch; however, 
he should have been protected under the Whistleblower Protection 
Act. 

The  applicant's  counsel 
states  that  during  audits  and 
investigations of  Air  Force  logistical problems, the  applicant 
had the courage to come forward about the things that he saw that 
were  wrong,  regardless  of  whether  some  personnel  might  be 

embarrassed.  When they tried to discourage him by unjustifiable 
adverse actions he persisted  in  "doing the  right thing" rather 
than  timidly  back  down.  An  Air  Material  Command,  Inspector 
General  (AMC/IG) investigation completed in 1992 and a Department 
of Defense, Inspector General  (DOD/IG) investigation completed in 
1995 substantiated that  improper reprisals had  taken place  and, 
in  addition  to  recommending  some  relief  at  the  time,  both 
recommended that applicant file with the Board  for other relief 
that it was not within their power to grant.  The applicant filed 
a similar protected communication complaint with AF/IG regarding 
a situation that arose from combining two supply units on base. 
An  E-7 in the other unit occupied an E-8 position that was being 
preserved.  Applicant's position  was  being  deleted  and  he  was 
being  I1shuntedf1 into  an  available  E-7  position. 
App 1 i cant 
pointed out that as an E-8, who had completed MAJCOM Senior NCO 
Academy  training, he  had  a  superior claim  to  the  E-8 position 
(the E-7  involved  had  not  been  through  Senior  NCO  leadership 
training  and  did  not  have  the  high  119-levellf skill  level  that 
applicant had).  Although  the  decision was made  not  to  change 
things, applicant's complaint was not frivolous.  In May of-93, 
applicant  had  protected  communications  with  the  89th  Wg/IG 
concerning one of  the reprisal EPRs dated  15 Jan 92 -5 Nov  92. 
In April  of  1994, he  had  protected  communication with  the  89th 
Supply  Sq/CC  and  the  89th Wg/IG  on  a  related matter.  It  was 
during this period that the aforementioned reprisal actions took 
place. 
These reprisals resulted in two downgraded EPRs, loss 
or delay of decorations and their resulting promotion points, and 
an assignment to a position below his pay-grade in violation of 
AFRs  50-2  (NCO  responsibilities)  and  39-1  (specialty codes). 
These,  in  turn,  resulted  in  applicant's  inability  to  compete 
fairly for promotion to E-9 and forced his premature retirement 
from  the  Air  Force  on  31  January  1995.  There  is  a  complete 
absence of any wrongdoing by the applicant.  To the contrary, two 
different IGs found that he had been reprised against. 
In regard to applicant's requests, the applicant's counsel notes 
the following: 

a.  The  EPR, closing  15 January  1992 was  removed  from  his 
records  but  not  in  time  to  avoid  it  damaging  applicant's 
promotion consideration by the cycles 9369, 9469, and 9439. 

and 

b.  The  AFCM  awarded  for  applicant's  1993  deployment  to 
was  inexplicably  delayed  and  was  not 
ered  by  the  next  E-9  board,  unlike  most  of  the  other 
personnel who received their award immediately upon their return 
from "Operation Restore Hope". 

c.  The  EPR,  closing  5  November  1992, should  be  upgraded 
since it was influenced by a Letter of Reprimand  (LOR) which was 
removed as a result of the IG investigations.  When the applicant 
asked the rater why he marked him down in written communications 
-  an obvious promotion killer -  the rater was unable to justify 
his  actions  and  eventually  refused  to  discuss  the  matter.  In 

2 

addition, the  rater had  not  completed  the  required  counselings 
during  the  reporting period.  In  addition, the  rater  of  this 
report worked directly for the rater on the previous EPR who was 
found guilty of reprisal. 

d.  In  regard  to  a  decoration  for  the  for  the  $113,000 
renovation of supply facilities applicant accomplished in June of 
1991, counsel states that applicant, with  just the help of  two 
airmen loaned to him on a short-term basis, planned, worked and 
completed a $113,000 major renovation project which modernized a 
3,000 sq  ft administrative area.  This project  lasted over six 
months and was a complete overhaul with new wiring, drop ceiling, 
walls, etc. being installed. It involved considerable overtime as 
well as his having to do his other work.  Among other things, the 
applicant, through shrewd negotiation, succeeded in getting all 
the  required  modular  furniture  at  50%  off  the  normal  price. 
Counsel notes that applicant's efforts almost cost him his life. 
Before he went ahead with some work in the area of high voltage 
lines he  got  assurances  from  CE  that  all  electrical  power had 
been  turned  off. 
CE  was  wrong  and  applicant  was  ilijnred, 
including shock and burns  on both  hands.  He was  told  that  he 
would be put in for an AFCM for outstanding achievement; however, 
it  was  later decided  that  his  work  did  not  rise  to  the  level 
where  it  merited  an  award.  If  his  efforts  did  not  merit  an 
award, then why did the EPR rendered during this period contain a 
lrtwo-star'l endorsement. 

e.  The  Board  is  allowed  to  rely  on  its  experience  that 
giving a senior NCO  (with a prior MSM) an extended tour MSM after 
three years on station is the standard practice.  Applicant had 
routinely  (on at  least ten occasions) written up similar awards 
for others.  Until  these  reprisal actions took place  applicant 
had perfect APRs and EPRs going back  to the time he was a staff 
sergeant.  In fact the two EPRs he had at this assignment prior 
to  these problems  were  flawless and  was  even  nominated  as  the 
unit's senior NCO  of  the  Quarter.  There  is  no  indication of 
misconduct  anywhere on the part  of  applicant, nor  is there any 
reason to believe  he  worked  less or did anything but  his usual 
high  quality  of  work.  He  provided  stellar  support  to  three 
Presidents  and  may  well  have  saved  the  Air  Force  millions  of 
dollars by reporting fraud, waste and abuse.  In addition, he was 
selected  as  the  Military  Airlift  Command  Outstanding  Supply 
Superintendent of  the Year just prior to these reprisals.  Given 
the 
is 
extraordinarily difficult to conceive of a senior NCO not being 
nominated for an extended tour MSM without reprisal of some sort 
being involved. 

accomplishments 

above 

and 

circumstances, 

it 

f.  The best and most efficient way for applicant to be made 
llwhole" is for this Board  to recommend his promotion to E - 9   on 
its own authority.  Counsel provides information about a similar 
case  in  which  an  NCO  suffered years  of  reprisal  and  the  Army 
Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records  authorized  a  direct 
promotion in that case. 

In support of the appeal, applicant’s counsel submits a copy of 
the  DOD  Directive  regarding  Military  Whistleblower  Protection, 
copies  of  the  DOD/IG  and  AF/IG  investigations,  extracts  from 
applicant’s medical  records,  and  a  copy  of  the  Andrews  AFB 
Decoration Guide. 

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular Air  Force on  15 January 
1 9 6 9   and served continuously until his retirement on 31 January 
1 9 9 5 .  
The applicant was promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant 
(E-8), effective 1 August 1 9 9 0 .  
The applicant was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal  (M6MT for 
the period 4 November 1 9 8 6   t 6  July 1 9 9 0 .  
On 28 July  1991,  the  applicant submitted a complaint of  racial 
discrimination  to  the  Commander  in  Chief,  Military  Airlift 
Command. 
On 1 9   December 1991,  the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) for reporting to the group commander regarding complaints 
against the unit concerning the manner in which he  was required 
to perform his aerobics run. 

The  applicant  filed  a  complaint  with  the  Air  Mobility  Command 
Inspector General (AMC/IG) alleging the mishandling of his racial 
discrimination complaint, and that  four reprisal actions  (i.e./ 
denial of a position within the squadron which he was qualified 
for, was not awarded an Air Force Achievement Medal  (AFAM), LOR, 
dated  1 9   December  1 9 9 1   and  downgraded  EPR,  closing  1 5   January 
1 9 9 2 )   were  taken  against  him  for  filing  the  discrimination 
complaint. 
On 29  September 1992,  the AMC/IG completed their investigation of 
applicant‘s complaints and found that collaboration of witnesses 
did not occur during the inquiry of the discrimination complaint. 
The AMC/IG also found the applicant’s allegations that there was 
a breach of  confidentiality in the processing of  the  complaint 
was  substantiated; however,  it  could  not  be  attributed  to  the 
inquiry  officer,  squadron  commander,  nor  anyone  in  specific. 
AMC/IG  also  found  reprisal, as  it  pertains  to  the  LOR,  dated 
1 9   December 1 9 9 1  and the EPR, closing 1 5   January 1992,  did occur, 
and  recommended  the  LOR  be  removed  from  the  records  and  the 
applicant pursue voidance of the EPR through the correction board 
process. 

4 

On 10 March 1993, the Evaluation Report Appeals Board voided the 
EPR, closing 15 January 1992. 

The applicant was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal, Third 
Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AFCM, 3  OLC)  for  the  period  15  July  1993 
through 30 September 1993. 

On  26  July  1994,  the  applicant  submitted  an  application  for 
voluntary retirement, effective 1 February 1995. 
On  2  December  1994,  the  applicant  submitted  a  complaint  of 
reprisal through his Congressman's office alleging mishandling of 
his retirement ceremony. 

On  20  January  1995, the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Inspector 
General  (SAF/IG) completed their investigation of the applicant's 
complaint and  found no  evidence of  reprisal.  SAF/IG concluded 
that the alleged mishandling of the retirement ceremony was  the 
result  of  poor  communications  between  the  squadron  and  the 
project NCO  for the  retirement, a  lack of  communication bf-the 
applicant to his squadron supervisor, and the  short time period 
between  the  applicant's  decision  to  participate  in  the  wing 
ceremony and the ceremony's  scheduled date. 
On 1 February 1995, the applicant retired for maximum service or 
time  in  grade.  He  completed  26  years  and  16  days  of  active 
service. 

On  2  October  1995,  the  DOD/IG  reviewed  the  SAF/IG  report  of 
investigation  and  found  that  the  investigation  adequately 
addressed  the  issues  raised  and  further  investigation  of  the 
matter was not warranted. 
A resume of applicant's performance profile, since 1986, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 

9 
9 (W/LOE) 
9  (W/LOE) 
9 
5 
5 

5 
5 

Report removed by order 
of The Chief of Staff 

30 Jun 86 
30 Jun 87 
30 Jun 88 
30 Mar 89 
30 Mar 90 
30 Mar 91 
15 Jan 92 
*  5 Nov 92 
5 Nov 93 

*  Contested Report 

5 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Recognition  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPRA,  reviewed  this 
application and states the following: 

a. Applicant's  EPR,  closing  30  March  1991,  mentions  the 
accomplishment  for which  he  requests an AFCM  or AFAM  and  which 
supposedly took place in Jun 91.  The AMC/IGC report stated, "Not 
being awarded the Achievement Medal was not reprisal, because the 
reasons for disapproving it were based on merit." Applicant has 
not  provided  any  explanation  for  the  discrepancy  in  the  dates 
(March  1991  vs. 
In  addition,  there  is  no 
documentation  provided  to  substantiate  the  his  claim  that  a 
written recommendation was submitted into official channels. 

June  1991). 

b. Squadron policies  regarding  awards  and  decorations  can 
not be considered by higher headquarters, only Air Force policy. 
Air  Force  Instruction  36-2803,  paragraph  2.2.6,  states,  "NO 
individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure 
for an assignment.  Do not establish preconditions for an bward.Il 
Applicant  has  not  provided  any  documentation  to  show  that  he 
attempted  to  resolve  this  matter  in  a  timely  manner  through 
proper administrative channels. 

c. There  is no  documentation provided  to  clarify what  the 
applicant  means  by  asking  that  "the  date  of  the  award  be 
backdated to the date of his return from that TDY;" nor is there 
any documentation provided that shows other personnel who were on 
the same TDY trip received a decoration or when. 

d. Applicant  has  failed  to  substantiate his  claim  that  he 
was  denied  a decoration  for renovation of  supply facilities in 
June 1991.  Mention of this accomplishment on his EPR, closing 30 
March  1991,  lends  confusion  to  the  actual  date  of  the 
accomplishment. 
Without  documentation  to  substantiate  his 
earlier claim that  award of  the AFAM  was  denied, plus  the  fact 
the  IG  confirmed  the  denial  was  based  on  merit,  and  no 
documentation to show that the applicant attempted to resolve the 
matter through proper channels in a timely manner as required by 
Air Force Instructions, they cannot verify his eligibility for a 
decoration which has already been recognized in his EPR. 

e. Decorations are not automatically awarded for completion 
of  a  tour,  whether  it  is  completion of  the  first  part  of  an 
extended tour or the end of a tour.  Applicant has not provided 
any documentation to show that he attempted to resolve the matter 
through proper  channels  in  a  timely manner  as  required  by  Air 
Force Instructions.  Applicant did not provide any information on 
a  decoration  awarded  upon  his  retirement  or  the  period  it 
covered.  There is nothing in his records to reflect a retirement 
decoration.  If a decoration was awarded upon his retirement, and 
it  covered  the period  7 July  1990  through  31  January  1995,  he 
would  not  be  eligible  for  an  MSM  for  the  period  7 July  1990 
through 6 July 1993. 

f. There is nothing in the applicant Is  records, and nothing 
was provided, to show when the AFCM w/3  OLC was awarded, and no 
date  was  requested  for the  change.  No  documentation has  been 
provided to substantiate a claim that it was presented after the 
date of others' on the same TDY trip.  Therefore, they recommend 
denial of the application as it pertains to decorations. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C .  
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this 
application and states the following: 

a. Present Air Force policy does not allow for an automatic 
promotion as the applicant is requesting.  Although applicant is 
requesting supplemental promotion consideration for the 92,  93, 
and  94  chief boards, these are actually cycles  93S9,  9489,  and 
9 4 3 9 .  

b. The  first  time  the  EPR,  closing  5  November  1 9 9 2 ,   was 
considered  in  the  promotion  process  was  cycle  9439  to  chief 
master sergeant  (promotions effective Jan 94  -  Dec 9 4 ) .  
Should 
the AFBCMR upgrade Block 7 to the highest rating possible, void 
the report in its entirety or make any other significant change, 
providing  the  applicant  is  otherwise  eligible,  he  will  be 
entitled  to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with 
cycle 9 4 8 9 .  

1 -  

c. The applicant believes  that the EPR, closing 15 January 
1 9 9 2 ,   which was removed from his records on 10 March 1 9 9 3   had a 
negative  impact  on  his  promotion  consideration  for  the  chief 
boards  in  92,  93,  and  possibly  9 4 .  
Because  this  report  was 
removed from the applicant's records on 10 March  1993,  the only 
promotion  cycle  that  could  have  been  affected  was  cycle  9389 
(promotions effective Jan 93  -  Dec 9 3 ) .   However, he was provided 
supplemental promotion consideration for cycle  93S9  and was not 
selected in the supplemental process. 

d. Concerning 

the 

applicant s  request 

three 
decorations. 
It  is  noted  that  the  Office  of  Primary 
Responsibility  (OPR) for Air Force Decorations  (AFPC/DPPPRA) has 
reviewed  this  case  and  recommended  the  applicant's  request  be 
denied.  They defer to their recommendation.  Since it is unknown 
at the present what decorations the applicant may be  awarded, if 
any,  it  is  not  possible  at  this  time  to  determine  what 
supplemental  promotion  consideration would  be  warranted  should 
his  request  for these decorations be  granted.  Therefore, they 
recommend denial of applicant's requests. 

for 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

The Acting Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this 
application and states the following: 

a. Applicant  submitted  an  appeal  in  1993  under  the 
provisions  of  AFR  31-11,  Correction  of  Airman  and  Officer 
Evaluation Reports,  to  request  removal  of  the  EPR,  closing  15 
January 1992.  The Evaluation Report Appeal Board  (ERAB) approved 
the request and voided the EPR.  The case folder on the applicant 
has since been destroyed, as they are only retained on file for 
three years.  The applicant now states the EPR was present when 
he was considered by the 1992, 1993, and 1994 CMSgt boards. 

b. The  application  may  be  dismissed  under  the  equitable 
doctrine  of  laches,  which  denies  relief  to  one  who  has 
unreasonably  and  inexcusably  delayed  in  asserting  a  claim. 
Laches consists of two elements: inexcusable delay and prejudice 
to the Air Force resulting therefrom.  In the applicant's case, 
he has waited four years to file and took no action on the claim 
before  that.  The applicant has  inexcusably delayed his appeal 
(providing no  explanation) and, as a  result, the Air  F o h  no 
longer has documents on file, memories fade, and this complicates 
the  ability  to  determine  the  merits  of  the  application.  In 
addition, the  test  to be  applied  is not  whether  the  applicant 
discovered the error within three years, but whether, through due 
diligence, it  was  discoverable.  Clearly, the  alleged  error(s) 
upon  which  he  relies  have  been  discoverable  since  the  alleged 
error ( s )   occurred. 
The  Air  Force  asserts  that  applicant's 
unreasonable delay regarding a matter now dating back four years 
has greatly complicated its ability to determine the merits  of 
the applicant's position. 

c. The overall rating of the EPR, closing 5 November 1992, 
is a  l15."  While they do not  contest the previous EPR  (closing 
15 January 1992) was written in reprisal, they do not agree that 
the downgrade in section I11 was also a result of reprisal.  The 
applicant's letter of reprimand was dated 19 December 1991 which 
would  have  affected  the  subsequent  EPR  (which has  now  been 
removed from the applicant's record).  Obvious by their absence 
are statements from the evaluators during the contested period. 
In order to successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation 
report,  it  is  important  to  hear  from  the  evaluators--not 
necessarily 
for 
clarification/explanation.  The  applicant  has  not  provided  any 
such documentation.  Without  benefit  of  these  statements, they 
can only conclude the EPR is accurate as written. 

support, 

for 

but 

at 

least 

d. Evaluation  reports  are  considered  accurate  as  written 
unless  substantial evidence  to  the  contrary  is  provided.  As 
such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter 
of record.  Any report can be rewritten to be more hard hitting, 
to  provide  embellishments,  or  enhance  the  ratee's  promotion 
potential.  But the time to do that is before the report becomes 
a  matter  of  record.  The  appeals  process  does  not  exist  to 
recreate  history or enhance chances  for promotion.  It  appears 

a 

this is exactly what the applicant is attempting to do-recreate 
history.  As such, they are not convinced the contested report is 
not  accurate  as  written  and  do  not  support  the  request  for 
removal. 

e. The applicant contends that even though the EPR, closing 
15 January 1 9 9 2 ,   was removed, it was on file for the 1992, 1993, 
and  1 9 9 4   CMSgt boards.  They defer to the AFPC/DPPPWB advisory 
regarding this issue. 

f. Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  in 
regard  to  the  applicant's request  for  direct  promotion to  the 
grade of CMSgt.  An  individual may  be  qualified for promotion, 
but,  in  the  judgment  of  a  selection  board-vested  with 
discretionary authority to make the selections--he may not be the 
best  qualified  of  those  available  for  the  limited  number  of 
promotion  vacancies.  Absent  clear-cut  evidence  the  applicant 
would have been a selectee by any of the boards for which he was 
eligible,  they  believe  a  duly  constituted  board  applying-the 
complete promotion criteria is in the most advantageous position 
to render this vital determination.  The board's prerogative  to 
do  so  should  not  be  usurped  except  under  extraordinary 
circumstances.  Further, to  grant  a  direct  promotion would  be 
unfair  to all other  individuals who  have  extremely  competitive 
records  and  also  did  not  get  promoted.  They  do  not  support 
direct  promotion. 
Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  his 
request  to change  the  EPR, closing  5 November  1 9 9 2   and  do not 
support direct promotion. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant's  counsel  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations and 
states that: 

a. Concerning  the  timeliness  of  the  application,  the 
applicant continuously fought his case since the unfair treatment 
began  7  years  ago. 
In  addition,  the  applicant  retired  on 
31 January 1995;  therefore, his application is timely filed. 

b. Although AFPC/DPPPA concedes the EPR, closing 1 5   January 
1 9 9 2 ,   was a reprisal action, they contend this does not prove the 
EPR, closing 5 November 1 9 9 2   was.  Counsel contends it  flies in 
the fact of  logic that the second lieutenant who wrote the EPR, 
closing 5 November 1 9 9 2 ,   and who worked directly for the captain 
who  was  the  repriser, was  totally uninfluenced by  her.  Absent 
evidence  to  the  contrary  from  the  government,  applicant  is 
entitled to the benefit  of the doubt.  AFPC/DPPPA's  implication 

that applicant must obtain statements from the evaluators is both 
illogical and wrong.  With such junior officers there is a chance 
that  they  are  still  on  active  duty.  For  them  to  admit  they 
engaged  in  reprisals  is  unlikely  and  they  would  be  putting 
themselves at risk for criminal charges. 

c. AFPC/DPPPA does not support a direct promotion; however, 
they do not  say it  cannot be  done.  The Secretary has granted 
direct promotions without the involvement of promotion board.  He 
believes this is the most logical and equitable resolution. 

d. Apparently AFPC/DPPPRA  had  some  confusion in regard  to 
the March and June dates pertaining to their request for an AFCM 
or  AFAM  for  the  renovation  project  in  1991. 
The  renovation 
project took many months  (including March) and it came to an end 
in June.  Applicant and counsel stand by their arguments in their 
initial  application,  including  the  laudatory  comments  in  the 
March  1991  EPR  which  support  the  other  statements made  by  the 
applicant. 

e. AFPC/DPPPRS  contends  that  squadron  policies  regarding 
awards  and  decorations  cannot  be  considered  by  higher 
headquarters, only Air  Force policy, but  they  fail to cite any 
authority  for  this  claim. 
Counsel  contends  the  Board  has 
authority under it broad mandate  to consider almost anything  it 
reasonably believes is relevant.  Failure of a unit to adhere to 
it's  own regulations and policies should result in relief being 
granted to the applicant who was hurt by the failure. 

e -  

f. Applicant's  request  for backdating of  the AFCM, 3  OLC, 
is not unreasonable.  The AFCM, 3 OLC, should have been awarded 
in a timely fashion. 

g. Counsel  accepts  AFPC/DPPPAB's 

correction  of  the 
promotion board  dates, but  not  the  fact that  these boards  took 
place  later  actually  increases  the  likelihood  the  prejudicial 
matters were considered by those boards. 

h. During applicant's  last  8 years of  service, he provided 
specialized logical support for 3  Presidents and Vice-Presidents, 
cabinet  members,  heads  of  state  and  other  high-ranking US  and 
Assignment to the elite Presidential support 
foreign 
wing at 
usually indicates that you have established a 
good record.  Applicant's  record prior to the discrimination and 
reprisals against  him  certainly falls into this category.  His 
1990  through  1991 EPR  prior  to  these reprisals recommended  him 
for promotion to E - 9 .  
It is unusual for a government agency to 
actually rule that a reprisal actually took place, but they have 
submitted proof  of  this.  It is a rare case where the applicant 
can prove  every  item  he  asserts, but  fortunately  the  Board  is 
allowed  to  use  its knowledge of  human  affairs  to  make  logical 
assumptions. 

10 

Counsel's complete submission is attached at Exhibit I. 

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  probable  error  or  injustice.  In 
this  respect,  we  note  that  the  applicant  makes  a  number  of 
contentions regarding loss or delay of decorations; however, he 
has provided no documentation to support his request.  Even  if 
the Board were to favorably consider this portion of his request, 
he was provided no clarification as to what  he  means by  asking 
that,  "the date  of  the  award  be  backdated  to  the  date ,of  his 
return from TDY."  It appears that he wants to be awarded ceytain 
medals in which he has provided no support from individuals who 
would have been in a position to have  recommended him for these 
awards. 
In  regard  to  the  contested  EPR,  we  note  that  the 
applicant has provided insufficient evidence to indicate that the 
contested  report  is in error or unjust.  In view  of  the above 
findings, we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  favorable 
consideration  of  his  request  for  promotion.  We  believe  the 
detailed  comments of  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force 
adequately  address  the  applicant's  contentions.  Therefore, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and 
adopt  their rationale as the basis  for our conclusion that  the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In 
the absence of  evidence to the contrary, we  find no compelling 
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(s) 
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  probable  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. 

11 

...- 

‘b - 

I 
I 
I 
i 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

B 

US. AIR FORCE 

NOV  1 2  1997 

1 9 4 7  -  1 9 9 7  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 10 

Reauested Action.  The applicant, through counsel, requests promotion to Chief Master 

Sergeant (CMSgt) with back pay and entitlements.  He also makes several other requests 
regarding enlisted performance reports (EPRs), decorations, and a letter of reprimand.  We 
address only the EPR issues. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends that all actions taken against him were the result 

of reprisal for reporting fraud, waste and abuse. 

Recommendation.  Time-bar.  If, however, the AFBCMR considers, then we recommend 

denial. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is not timely filed.  The applicant submitted an appeal in 1993 
under the provisions of AFR 3 1-1 1, Correction of Airman and Oficer Evaluation Reports, 
15 Mar 90, to request removal of his 15 Jan 92 EPR.  The Evaluation Report Appeal Board 
approved the request and voided the EPR.  The case folder on the applicant has since been 
destroyed, as they are only retained on file for three years.  The applicant now states the EPR was 
present when he was considered by the 1992, 1993, and 1994 CMSgt boards. 

b.  The application may also be dismissed under the equitable doctrine of laches, which 

denies relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in asserting a claim.  Laches 
consists of two elements:  inexcusable delay and prejudice to the Air Force resulting therefrom. 
In the applicant’s case, he has waited four years to file and took no action on the claim before 
that.  The applicant has inexcusably delayed his appeal (providing no explanation) and, as a result, 
the Air Force no longer has documents on file, memories fade, and this complicates the ability to 
determine the merits of his position.  In addition, the test to be applied is not whether the 
applicant discovered the error within three years, but whether, through due diligence, it was 
discoverable (see OpJAGAJ? 1988/56, 28 Sep 88, and the cases cited therein).  Clearly, the 
alleged error(s) upon which he relies have been discoverable since the alleged error(s) occurred. 

In short, the Air Force asserts that the applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding a matter now 
dating back four years has greatly complicated its ability to determine the merits of the appIicant’s 
position. 

c.  The governing regulation is AFR 39-62, Enlisted Evaluation System, 1 May 89. 
d.  5 Nov 92 EPR.  The applicant requests item 7, Communication Skills, section HI, 

be upgraded. 

(1)  We note the overall rating of the EPR is a “5.”  While we do not contest the 
previous EPR (1 5 Jan 92) was written in reprisal, we do not agree that the downgrade in section 
I11 was also a result of reprisal.  The applicant’s letter of reprimand was dated 19 Dec 91 which 
would have affected the subsequent EPR (which has now been removed from the applicant’s 
record). 

(2)  Obvious by their absence are statements from the evaluators during the 
contested period.  In order to successhIly challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is 
important to hear from the evaluators--not necessarily for support, but at least for 
clarificatiodexplanation.  The applicant has not provided any such documentation. Without 
benefit of these statements, we can only conclude the EPR is accurate as written. 

(3)  Evaluation reports are considered accurate as written unless substantial 

evidence to the contrary is provided.  As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming 
a matter of record.  Any report can be rewritten to be more hard hitting, to provide 
embellishments, or enhance the ratee’s promotion potentiaI.  But the time to do that is before the 
report becomes a matter of record.  The appeals process does not exist to recreate history or 
enhance chances for promotion.  It appears this is exactly what the applicant is attempting to do-- 
recreate history.  As such, we are not convinced the contested report is not accurate as written 
and do not support the request for removal. 

e.  15 Jan 92 EPR  The applicant contends that even though this report was 

removed, it was on file for the 1992, 1993, and  1994 CMSgt boards.  We defer to the HQ 
AFPCLDPPPWB advisory, dated 28 Oct 97. 

f  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 

probable error or injustice in regard to the applicant’s request for direct promotion to the grade of 
CMSgt.  An individual may be qualified for promotion, but, in the judgment of a selection board- 
vested with discretionary authority to make the selections--he may not be the best qualified of 
those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Absent clear-cut evidence the 
applicant would have been a selectee by any of the boards for which he was eligible, we believe a 
duly constituted board applying the complete promotion criteria is in the most advantageous 
position to render this vital determination.  The board’s prerogative to do so should not be 
usurped except under extraordinary circumstances.  Further, to grant a direct promotion would be 
unfair to all other individuals who have extremely competitive records and also did not get 
promoted.  We do not support direct promotion. 

Summay.  We recommend this appeal be time-barred.  The applicant has offered no valid 
explanation why he has waited more than three years since his A F I  36-2401 appeal to once again 
challenge the contested EPR.  This, in itself, makes it difficult for us to render an opinion on this 
appeal.  Regardless, if the AFBCMR considers, then we recommend denial to change the 5 Nov 
92 EPR.  Further, we do not support direct promotion. 

- 

Acting Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

‘

i

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

# 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPPRA 

550 C Street West Ste 12 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 14 

17 October 1997 

(NOTE: This Technical Advisory is concerned only with requests regarding three awards and 
decorations.  Each will be presented in order and discussed in the same order.) 

1.  REQUESTED ACTION.  Applicant requests: 

a.  Award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) or Air Force Achievement Medal 

(AFAM) for the $1 13,000 renovation of supply facilities he accomplished in June of 1991. 

b.  Award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for the period 7 Jul90-6 Jul93 “in 
accordance with normal squadron and Air Force policy of awarding this award to deserving 
senior NCOs after three years on station.” 

c.  Backdate the Air Force Commendation Medal with 3d Oak Leaf Cluster (15 Jul.93-30 Sep 

93) to the date of his return from TDY so an SSB for that year can consider it. 
2.  BASIS FOR REQUEST.  Applicant states he was not properly considered for promotion to 
E 9  (Chief Master Sergeant). 

3.  FACTS. 

a.  Applicant’s 30 

91 mentions the accomplishment for which he requests an AFCM or 
AFAM and which supposedly took place in Jun 9 1.  The 29 Sep 92 HQ AMC/IGC report stated, 
“Not being awarded the Achievemenr M e d a l s  not reprisal, because the reasons for disap- 
proving it were based on merit.”  Applicant has not provided any explanation for the discrepancy 
in the dates (Mar 91 vs. Jun 91); there is no documentation provided to substantiate the appli- 
cant’s claim (in the 92 IG report) that a written recommendation was submitted into official 
channels.  Applicant has not provided any documentation to show that he made any attempt to 
resolve this matter through proper administrative channels or in a timely manner. 

b.  Squadron policies regarding awards and decorations can not be considered by higher 

headquarters, only Air Force policy.  Air Force Instruction 36-2803, paragraph 2.2.6, states, “No 
individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure for an assignment.  Do not estab- 
lish preconditions for an award.”  Applicant has not provided any documentation to show that he 
attempted to resolve this matter in a timely manner through proper administrative channels. 

c.  There is no documentation provided to clarify what the applicant means by asking that 
“the date of h e  award be backdated to the date of his return from that TDY;” nor is there any 
documentation provided that shows other personnel who were on the same TDY trip received a 
decoration or when. 

4.  DISCUSSION. 

a.  Applicant has failed to substantiate his claim that he was denied a decoration for renova- 

tion of supply facilities in Jun 91.  Mention of this accomplishment on his Mar - 91 EPR lends 
confusion to the actual date of the accomplishment. Without documentation to substantiate his 
earlier claim 192 IG report] that award of the AFAM was denied, plus the fact the IG confirmed 
the denial was based on merit, and no documentation to show that the applicant attempted to 
resolve the matter through proper channels in a timely manner as required by Air Force Instruc- 
tions, we can not verify his eligibility for a decoration which has already been recognized in his 
EPR. 

b.  Decorations are not automatically awarded for completion of a tour, whether it is comple- 

tion of the first part of an extended tour or the end of a tour.  Applicant has not provided any 
documentation to show that he attempted to resolve the matter through proper channels in a 
timely manner as required by Air Force Instructions.  Applicant did not provide any information 
on a decoration awarded upon his retirement (3 I Jan 95) or the period it covered.  There is noth- 
ing in his records to reflect a retirement decoration.  If a decoration was awarded upon his 
retirement, and it covered the period 7 Jul90-3 1 Jan 95, he would not be eligible for an MSM for 
the period 7 Jul90-6 Jul93. 

c.  There is nothing in the applicant’s records, and nothing was provided, to show when the 

AFCM w/3 OLC was awarded, and no date was requested for the change.  No documentation has 
been provided to substantiate a claim that it was presented after the date of others’ on the same 
TDY trip. 

5.  RECOMMENDATION. 

a.  We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the Air Force Com- 

mendation Medal or Air Force Achievement Medal for accomplishments in Jun 91. 

b. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the Meritorious Serv- 

ice Medal for the period 7 Jul90-6 Jul93. 

c.  We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request to backdate the Air Force Commen- 
dation Medal with 3d Oak Leaf Cluster (15 Jul93-30 Sep 93) to the date of his return fiom TDY 
so an SSB for that year can consider it. 

FOR THE COMMANDER 

GEORGIA A. WISE, DAFC 
Recognition Programs Branch 
Promotions, Eval & Recognition Div 

6 
AFI 36-2803 IS Augwl1994 
7.  Exception: 1100th Support Wing baa award authority for MsMa for retirement, separation, and posthumous, and lesser 
awards for all coaditiona to include Air Force clunent penomel. 
8.  DRUs with flying missions 
9. Only when specifically delegated by MAJCOWCC. 

WEEN TO RECOMMEND AN INDIVIDUAL FOR A US MfLITARY DECORATION 

2.1.  EllgibDtty.  All military personnel on active duty are 
eligible for mnsidaration for  a US military  decoration. 
Members of Reserve components, while pardcipating  in 
authorized periods of  training or while ia inactive status, 
nre  eligible  for consideration of a military  decoration. 
Recognize members assigned to DoD acdviti~ with either 
an Air Farct  or DoD  award.  Do ant we  approval  or 
disapproval of either the Air Force or DoD award as the 
bada fck consideration of the other award. 

2.2.  Submitting Reoommendatlona 
2.2.1.  Do not submit recommendaciolur in a token effmt 
to "0  SoIdlhg for your people." 
2.2.2.  Rabict recommendations t6 rccognhhg  merito- 
rious senria, outstanding achievement, or acts of heroism 
that clearly place individuals above hia or her pecrs. 
2.2.3. Base ncommendations on specific projects, plans, 
programs, or d o a s  which are or will be beneficial to the 
AirFotce. 
2.2.4.  Superior duty  performance,  attainment of  honors 
based solely on academic achievement (such as graduating 
with honors from a noncommissioned officer academy or 
other coutse of  insbuction), or receipt of  other forms of 
ltcognition (for example, selection as airman of the month 
or  year  or identification as  a superior  performer by  the 
Inspector  General)  do  not  m  themselvw'justify  a 
rccommedation for a military decoration. 
2.2.5  Each decoration pnscribes standads which de& 
the degrec and  magnitude  of  an  act, achievement,  or 

. qr 

3 

"D . _ I   *<& >.*.#+------- 

d e a f i o i i  foi mccnhvc2J or as prizes in contests. 
r 
2.2.7.  Evaluate all related facts regarding the sewica of 
*  8 or awarding a decora- 
my  penon before  mxmmmdm 
tion. 
2.2.8.  The reassignment or retirement of  a commander or 
supervisor is not a basis for ncommending decorations to 
aubopdinates. 
2.2.9.  Award  only  one  decoration  for the  m e  act, 
achievement, or period of mice. 

I 

2.2.10.  Do not  award  or present  a  decoration to any 
person whose tatin acwicc for the period covered by h e  
decoration has notmn hmorabk 
2.3.  h ! o ~ e D d a d O M  Based on Meritorious Service. 
Upon a completed period of service. 
2.3.1.  Permaaent Change of Station (PCS).  A move 
from one geograpbical m a  to another. On ran occasioas, 
considm a decoration fot setvice involving assignments in 
two commands, providing the individual being reassigned 
did  not  w i v e  an awatd  from  losing  command.  The 
losing c o d  must provide input for the service at that 
command  and must  concur with the level of  decoration 
recommended. 
29.2.  Permanent  Change  of  Assignment  @CAI. 
Reassignment from one unit to another on the same base 
or from one office or duty section to another located at the 
The new  assignment  must  be 
same  organization, 
markedly  dif€crent from  the  pnvious duty  to meet  the 
intent of the completed period of service requirement. 
2.3.3.  Extended Tour (EX" TOUR). Not  a PCS or 
E A ,  but  clearly  outstanding and  unmis%&bly%+- 
tional service for an extended period of  at least 3 years for 
award  of  the  Bronze  Star  Medal  (BSM) and l y a  
- 
decorations or at hsta y m  for award of the mM. 
2.3.3.1.  Don't consi&r individuals for a completed period 
of sew&  award (except retirement) un~ess at least 2 ysan 
have Elapsed a b r  the extended period a w d .  
23.4.  Retirement -Review  records and consider  the 
individual's  entire  career  to dcttrmine  the appropriate 
level  of  decoration  for  retirement.  Prepare 
the 
ncommendation using the most went period of service. 
NOTE:  Decoradons for retiremeat normally  terminate 
on the  last  day  of  the month for Regular Air  Farce 
personnel.  Process ncommendadons for retirement  in 
time for a presentation ceremony and to permit processing 
and appropriate entries on retirement documcnta. 

- --_. 

Recommendations  Based  on  Outstandbg 
2.4. 
Achievement.  Recognize  a  single  epecihc  act  or 
accomplishment  separate  and  distbct  from regularly 
assigned duties, auch as successfully completiug important 
projects or on reaching major milestones of  a long-term 
project or negotiadom or accompUahmenta in a tsmpony 
duty (TDY) staiua.  (A  signitiCant project accomplished 
within regularly assigned duties may meet the criteria.) 

..-  . . 

2.4.1.  An outstandmg achievement award covers a short 
period of time with & W e  besinning and ending dates. 
.. 
Submit at my time within the Ppcacribed time limits. 
2.4.2.  Submit a fecommcDdaton d y  when you have no 
other  way  to  recognize the achievement  and waiting 
would  diminish the sigdbncc of the  accomplishment. 
Do not use Outstanding achievement to justify decorations 
when  the  conditiom for  a compfctcd period  of  service 
have not been met. 
2.4.3.  You  may  reamme&  an a w d  for nWitorklus 
service at &e end of assignment even if the individual 
received an award for outstanding achievement during the 
time included in the  ncommcndalion;  however,  do  not 
include previously recogniwi acts or achievement8 ia the 
justitication for the later award. 

8

.

 

Table 2.1.  United States hliutpry Decorations 

Awarded For 

Decorntlon (See  note 1.) 

Heroism,  Serolce 

7 

25.  Recommenda~one Based  on  Herobm.  Clearly 
state  that  du: act  charactctizea  cowage,  intrepidity,  or 
gallanuy.  When the  act involved voluntary  risk of  life, 
you must clearly show that the iadividual wouM not have 
been censured had he or she not voluntarily accompiishcd 
the acts. 
26. RocommendatIom Based on Aerial Achlevementa 
Recogntzs  dmew  members  involved  with  operating 
&craft  or  other  personnel  performing aircnw  4ember 
duties.  'Ibe  recommandatim must  clearly  substantiate 
exceptional  performance  and  ouotaoding  ~&nim&% 
above that namally expected of professional airmtn. 
2.7.  Pvstbumoue Recommeddntlona  Bsse postfiumolis 
awards for a deceased person using the same critcria'you 
use for a living person. 

t 

us 

Awarded To 
Mu 

I 

FOREIGN 
I;yV 

C i V  

I 

Medal of Honor (MOW : 

Air Fora Cross (AFC) 

*- 

Distinguished Service Medal 
(DSM) 
Silva Star (SS) 

Legion of Merit &OM) 

Yes (See 
notw 2 and 
3.) 
Yes (See 
notes2and 
4.) 
No 
Yes (See 
notes 2 and 
6.) 
No 
Yes (see 
note 9.) 
Yes (See 
note 10.) 

No 

NO 

Yes (See note 5.) 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 
No 

YeS 

No 

Yeg 

YCS 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes  ' 

Yes (See 
note 7.) 

YCS 

No 
No 

No 

Yes(&% 
note 8.) 
YeS 

Yes 

---- 

N O  

Distinguished Flying &OS 
(DFC) 
Airman's Medal (AmnM) 
Bronze Star Medal (BSM) (See  Yes 
notes 2 and 11.) 
Purple Heart (PH) (See note 
No 
12.) 
'Meritorious Savice Mtdsl 
(MSM) 
Air Medal (AM) 
Aerial Achievement Medal 
(AAM) 
Air Force Commendation 
Medal (AFCM) 
Air Force Achievement Medal  NO 
(AFAM) 

YCS 

No 

No 

Act of 

Yes (See note 14.) 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes (See note 13.) 

YCS 

Yes 

YeS 

No 

Ycs(Sce 
note 15.) 

YCS 

No 

No 

No 

YeS(S# 
note 16.) 
Ycs(Sae 
note 17.) 

Y e  (See note 18.) 
Yes (See note 20.) 

(Nom to table on next page) 

Yes(See 
note 19.) 
Yes(See 
note 21.) 

No 
No 

Yes 

Yes(Ste 
note 21.) 

No 

No 

No 

No 

N O  
No 

I

,

' 

' 

1 

*

 

' 

AFI 36.2803  IS August 1994 

8  ' - 
NOTES: 
1.  Refer to DoD 1348.33-M for authdzatiOa, spc&c  award r e q u h e a t s  and brief description of  there decoratiw. 
2.  W h i i  engaged in an action against an memy of tbc US, or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an 
oppo8ing fonign force, or while serving with friendly fdnlgn f m s  eng8ge.d in an armed conflict against an opposing force 
In which the US is not I belligerent party. 
3.  Awerded for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity nt the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty.  See DoD 1348.33- 
M for comttdics and privileges.  A w d  the Air Forrx &ign  of the MOH on or efter 1 November 1965. (Refer  to attachment 
3 for application enrollment forms.) 
4.  'Awarded for extraordinary heroism, not sustifying award of the MOH. 
5.  Awarded for exceptionally meritorious service to the US in a duty of great nsponsibility.  The basic award may be made 
for a complctcd period of outstanding service; howevw, restrict subsequent awards prior to retirement to extraordinary, spe- 
cific achievements during om or mort periods of (LcNIc6.  Wid is the highest peacetime Air Force decoration awarded. 
6.  Awarded for gallantty in action that does not wanat the MOH or Apc  Gallantry in actioa near8 heroism of high &pa 
. .  , I :  
in;clding risk d life. . 
7.  Awarded for exceptionally meritorious amduct in the performance of outstanding sewice to the US. In peacetime, awards 
to us military penrod are flmitcd to: 
t.1.  Service in an extremely difficult duty that is paformed in a clearly exceptid mauuer, if such service is of marked 
national Q mternatiohl siignitlcaecc &-the Air Force or the DoD. 
1.2..  Or sarice that has aided the US in Authering its national politics. 
7.3.  Or service which has f u r t h # e d  the interest or the d t y  ofthe US. 
7.4.  Or senrice that has furtbertd the interests or the security of the US, OT any nation allied or associated with the US during 
a period of national emergency .declated by the Prdicnt or Congrasa. Superior performance of normal duties will not alone 
justify award of this dccaado~~. . 
of Chief Commander, Commander, officer and 
8.  There are four dcgnes awarded to fmign military personnel.  (De- 
LegioMairr). Refer to l h D  1348.33-M for the specific award criteria for each degree. 
9. W e  participating in aerial fight. Heroism or achievement must be entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not 
routine. Not awarded far sustained operational activities and flights. 
IO. Involving volunmy risk of life under conditions other than those of conflict with an armed enemy of  the US. The saving 
of a life or the success of thc voluntary heroic act is not essential.  Do not award for normal performance of duties. 
I I.  Not involving participation in aerial flight. Award the "V" (see attachment 3) device for heroism. Do not wear more than 
one 'V device. 
12.  Awarded for wounds received or death after being wounded  While Serving in any capacity with one of  the US Armed 
Forces after 5 April 1917.  Refer to DoD 1348.33-M for specific conditions. 
13.  Any US civilian while serving under competent authority in any capacity with the Air Forw. 
14.  Awarded for outstanding noncombat meritOrious achievement or d c e  to tho US. Level of achievement or service is 
less than that required far LOM. 
15.  Do not award to foreign military personnel in the grade of brigadier geaeral or higher. 
16.  Awarded for single acts of achievement while participating in aerial flight  Required achievement is less thaa that re- 
q u i d  for the DE, but must be accomplished witb distinction above and beyond that expected of  pmfasional airmen. Not 
awarded for peace time sustained operadonal activiWflighm. 
17.  Awarded  for sustained meritorious achievement while participating in aerial fli&ht.  MAICOMs, FOAS, DRUs will 
identify tbe missions and positions to qualify for the award.  Not awarded for single event flights. 
18.  Awarded for outstanding achievement or meritorious Servia, or acts of courage that do not meet the requirements for 
award of the AmnM or BSM, and sustained mdtorioud performance by crew members. 
19.  Do not award to general or flag officer grade.  Aaa emphasis on award to outstanding company grade officers and junior 
NCOs whase achievements and services meet the standards. 
20.  Awarded for outstanding achievement or metitodous service and acts or acts of  coutage that do not meet the require- 
ments of tbe AFCM. place emphasis on award to junior officers and airmen whosc achievements a d  service meet the stan- 
dards. Do not award mort than one AFAM during a l-year period except under extraordinary circumstances.  Do not award 
for aerial achievement or mtirement. 
21.  Do not award to colonels (0-6) or above. 

AFZ 36-2803 15 Augurt 1994 

9 

.- 

Chapbr 3 

WEEN TO INITIATE AND HOW TO PREP- PROCESS AND 

COMPLETg ARECOMMENDATION 

' 

etW did  it, what &e impact or benefits w m ,  and how thal 
pcrsoa. Bipificlmtly cxccodtd duty pafonnance,  us Ibs 
following formats. 
0  Repare  Air  Fonx Achievemalt  Medal  (AFAM) 
justitication on Air  Forca  Form  642,  Alr  For# 
and  Air'  Force 
Achbvement  Medal 
Commendation Medal Judkation or on the AF 
Form  2274,~Air Worce  A c h i e v e   Medal 
certlilcpte.' 
Pqtm Air  Forcc  Commeadatiaa Medal justiflca- 
tion on AP Fonn 642 or on bond paper when the 
description does not lead itself to t h C A p p o r m  642. 
0  Prepare other dccolation justEca!ion  8%  a narrative 
using  a  bloclrtd  ptuagrapbd  or  tslking papa 
format (bullet).  Limit Distinguished Service Medal 
. @SM)  justification to thrce-pap, however, don't 
prepare  a  d v e  justification  for  retirement 
DSMs on retiring "Active Duty" General O f h r s .  
Descriptive  jusrScation  is  required  on  all  Air 
National Guard and Air Force Rcservc persormel 
for all  grade8  and  &codon  conditiolls. 
Limit 
Legion of  Merit and lesser Wratim justihtion 
to one page. 

0  Prepare  just;ficatian  for  decorations  based  on 
retirement  as  an endorsemat  memorandum  or 
letter or using tht above formats. 
3.25,  Citations.  See attachments 4  and 5 for how to 
complete citations. 
3.26. Additional Attachmenta  A rccoIIllflCndatioa may 
include: support&  doCumeatatiO&  if the person iaitiating 
the rcwmmendatia does not have firsthand knowledge of 
the act or service performed or offid sup@ng 
ItcoTds. 
Attach a copy of the citation for outstaading achievement 
to  the  recommendation  when  a  decoration  based  on 
outstanding achievement was  awardcd during the pcriod 
of  service  being recognized  by  a  rneritorioUS  service 
recornmeadation. 
3.3,  Processing a  Recommeudatlon.  Forward all 
recommmendatious through the n o d  chain of  command 
OP the  person being  reconunendcd.  The commander or 
vice  commander  at  each  headquarters  designated  to 
review recommendations must personally review and sign 
the forwarding endorsement for each.  Each intermediate 
commander must recommend approval or disappval of 
the recommendation or recommend award of  a higher  or 
lesser decoration. 
33.1.  Forward recommendatbns  placed  in  official 
channels  to  the  designated  approval  or  disappval 

.- 

~nger-exits, process  the  recommmendation  through  the 
replacement organizatiom. 

Preparing  a  Recommendation. 

Submit  a 
3.2. 
Recommendation  for  Decoration  Printout 
(RDP- 
DECOR6).  descriptive justification,  and  citation for an 
individual recommendation.  Submit an RDP, descriptive 
justification, and citation for each person when mort &m 
om person is rccommendcd for the same decoration and 
€or the same act, achievement, or service. 
Bccofdins to 
3.21.  Coateat.  Classify recom&om 
content  Consider  a  recommendation  "for  official us0 
only" until  the  awarding  authority  announces  its  final 
decision. 
3.2.2.  Classifled.  Do not include any  classified, h&hly 
sensitive, or special category information requiring speciat 
for 
handling  procsdures  in  regular  momme- 
decorations. 
3.2.3.  RDP-DECOR6.  Prepare  an  individual  I#XKII- 
mendation on an RDP-DECOR 6.  Attach tbe justlfkdoa 
3.2.3.1.  Use a memorandum or letter for an individual 
recommendatim for a foreign officer, separated membw 
or a member from another service.  The memorandum or 
letter must contain same information as the RDP. 
3.2.4.  Dwriptlve JustlPlcatlon,  filly justify all award 
recommendations to avoid the perception that decorations 
B T ~  automatic.  Avoid  generalities,  broad  or  vague 
terminology,  superlative adjectives or  a recapitulation of 
duties performed. The justification must provide concrete 
examples of  exactly what the person did, how well he or 

IO' 
auLdty  for  flnal  action,  regardle#  of  whetha 
intermediate endorsing officials or commacdctll determine 
the award does not meet the aitsria. 
33.2. Frocess recommendations submitted 011  individuals 
or on a group of individuals from vaxiow organizations to 
ncognize a single act or outstanding achievement through 
the project or operation comnramlds chain of command. 
Obtain coacumaa from the recommeadet'r qmmnder 
pridr to submitting the recommcII