ee | -INDEX REPORTING WORKSHEET
ii 121314151617 iB 19 oot Bee 3 24 25
R .-D DMM YY TYPE, -D D-M HUY Y.
E. DATE OF BOARD _bIscil = DATE ‘OF DISCH
Cc! "DECISION Pe -
0
N
x 2 “30ST 32 33 3 5 37°38 39 40 “WEB 405 8 74649 50 Bt SE
i Paiene AUTHORITY - REASON FOR” = ——s«&BOARD.DEC'N - REVIEW
, “OUSTIFY) | | Lo _. DISCHARGE — (LEFT. (AUSTIN) . ANTHORIT
be
slat lela LULL LULL. LLL ! Wy
33.5455 5657 585960 6l62 636465 6667." 68870 71 72 73475 7677
SSMES..ADDRESSED |
Man TA Be Peden he a rE esa ed Reed ee " i
Pate renasartansamnd MITE TG BA PA Pde ORAL EN PRP OPL OES SRP ud RE EA LEE Se habs On SEAL ESL EGPA PR Sermon On tyPLPneEPEeeeN er eeces ene
RECORD. OF PROCEEDINGS ;
AIR FORCE BOARD. FOR: ‘CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
DOCKET NUMBER : 98-00984
COUNSEL: NONE ; SEP 03/1008
HEARING DESIRED: NO * > | ~
Applicant requests that her DD: Form 214 be: ‘ecmmeared: to: refiéct: -
“the award of the Meritorious . Service. ‘Medal. with 2 Oak. Léaf.
Clusters (vice: 1), and the award of the Armed, Force Service
Medal. Applicant's submission is at, Exhibit AL
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's. requesi
and provided an advisory. opinion - to. ‘the:. ‘Board ‘Tec fing:
application be denied. (Exhibit °C)..." The advisory “opi ic
forwarded to. the applicant. ‘for review: and. response... (Exhibit. D)s
As of this date,.no HERPONES) has. been received’ ‘by this. office.
“Bfter careful cotisideraticn:. of, - ppplicant request” and | the:
available evidence wee. record, iin ficient. evidence Of
the: evidence of record: ‘and: have: | gens apes €e by sae oF
Absént persuasive evidence applicant was: denied righ sto whic
-entitled, appropriate ~ regulations Were: not.)
appropriate standards were. ‘Hot applied, we: UB
disturb the existing: Fecord.. ned: :
Acconditagly, applicant's request: is: ‘denied.
evidence’ which was. Tok reasonably available. ue
application was filed. fa fdee Bs
Members: of the Board. Mr ‘David: Ww. Mulgrew; | Mx:
‘ Hauslein, and Mr. Terry A. “yonkers | ‘considered shis ap
27 August 1998, in accordance with the provisions. 'o
Instruction 36- -2603. and the: Soverning statute, - 10° U. 8. e.. “1552.
-PAVID We -MULGREW
‘Panel Chair
_. Exhibits:
BR, Applicant! 5" DD. Form. 149.
-.B. Available Master Pefsonnel: Records
pi. Ee . Advisory: Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT. OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS: AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER.
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 12 May 1998 |
FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPPRA.
550 C Street West Ste 12
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4714
SUBJECT: Appligation for Correction of Military Records (DD Form 149) _
1. REQUESTED ACTION. Applicant requests correction of her DD Fotm 214 to reflect:
a. Award of the Meritorious Service Medal with 2. Oak Leaf Clusters (vice 1).
ye 7,
b. Award of the Armed Forces Service Medal.
2. BASIS FOR REQUEST.
a. "Applicant provided a copy. of the orders for the Second Oak Leaf Cluster to the Meritori-
ous Service Medal.
b. Applicant provided:an unsigned. Memorandum, Subj ect: Armed F orces Setvice Medal
Submission, dated 1 May 96; however, it lists. the Attachment’ as “Personnel Submitted for
HSM,” and:the Memorandum is not signed. She-also provided a news article regarding cligibil- at &
ity criteria for the Armed Forces Service Medal.
b. FACTS.
|
4: Applicant is entitled to the. Second Oak: Leaf Cluster to the Meritorious Service Medal,
and her DD Form 214 has been corrected to reflect this. :
b. Applicant’s records: did not indicate that-she was ‘assigned to any of the designated opera- .
tions subsequent to 1 Jun 92 for which the Armed Forces Service Medal was awarded. On 9 Apr.
98, this office requested the applicarit furnish TDY: orders reflecting her: participation: inoné of: oe
- the operations and a copy of her Travel Voucher(s) showing the inclusive datés she was if one: of i
the designated Areas of Responsibility. The applicant provided copies of Flight Authorization’
for 15 Jul 93-30.Jul 93.and for 27 Nov 94-9 Dec: 94. None of the documents provided reflect her,
. ,, Participation in any operation, much less one of the operations designated for award: ofthe -:
". Armed Forces Services Medal. .
7
4. DISCUSSION. The-applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to. verity that she...
participated i in any of the designated operations, -as required, Had the Memorandum: been’ signe ee
and submitted in 1996, her Military Personnel Flight (MPF) would have: added. and: AF. Form 104:
to her records and entered the Armed Forces Service Medal to her computer: file. Since the
applicant did not retire until 31 Mar 97, there was sufficient time for her to submit the necessary
documentation to her MPF so they could verify this award, . By not doing so; and’ by. not tsubmiit- .
Service Medal.
5. RECOMMENDATION.
- We recommend disapproval of the applicant's request to be: awarded the Armed Forces »
Service Medal.
FOR THE COMMANDER
-.GEORGIA A. WISE, DAF Cc
Recognition Programs Branch .'. .
Promotionis, Eval &. Recognition Div’
He also directed that the applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration with her corrected record. On 5 Dec 96, the Board recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Feb 91 be accepted for file in its proper sequence; that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Jun 91 be amended in Section I to show the period of the report as 19 Feb 91 through 18 Jun 91 and the reason for the report as...
At the time applicant's record was considered for promotion to the grade of major by the CY97 board, his Officer Selection Record TOSR) did not include the citations for the decorations listed above, and his overseas duty history did not reflect his assignment in West Berlin. The Air Force states that even though the contested decoration citations were not on file in the OSR when the board convened, they board members knew of their existence as evidenced by both the entries on the Officer...
The Air Force has indicated that although a copy of the MSM citation was not in his Officer Selection Record (OSR), the decoration was listed on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) assessed by the Board; therefore, the board members were aware of the award. The Air Force also indicated that central boards evaluate the entire officer record and it is highly unlikely the missing MSM citation from applicant's OSR was the cause of his nonselection. Applicant requests special selection board...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02234
Since the applicant’s supervisor at Ramstein AB called her previous supervisor at Lackland AFB to inquire about the level of the decoration, and he was told they did not consider her for an MSM because the multiyear retention bonus was not paid, administrative channels are considered to have been exhausted, and it is appropriate for the case to be considered by the BCMR. Her complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR...
HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Board, with the Meritorious Service Medal (First Leaf Cluster) (MSM(1OLC)) for the period 16 March O a k 1993-28 February 1995, included in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) . After careful consideration of the applicant‘s complete submission, we believe some doubt exists as to whether...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02973 INDEX CODE 100.05 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection board with his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflecting the duty history and Duty Air Force Specialty...
A complete copy of the Air Force evafuation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a 16-page rebuttal. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluations and provided a two-page rebuttal (see Exhibit K) . In essence, a majority of the board must recommend an officer for promotion and each member is required to certify...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00095
Had the initial orders, dated 4 Sep 02, been correct in awarding the applicant the AFCM 1OLC rather than the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), we believe the citation for the AFCM 1OLC would have been in her Officer Selection Record (OSR) when she was considered by the CY02B selection board. It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the CY02B Central Major Selection Board with the corrected record. OLGA M....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04091
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. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for the AM w/5BOLC, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was awarded the AM four times (basic award...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01214
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial indicating that they assume the misrepresented information the applicant is referring to is the Board Discrepancy Report filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR) indicating the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) was not updated in the Military Personnel Data System and that the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) citation was missing from her OSR. They have verified...