RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00590 (Case 3)

            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 111.00


            COUNSEL:  AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form  77  (Supplemental  Evaluation
Sheet), dated 7 Sep 96, be removed from his records; and, that  he  be
provided a letter of apology from the evaluator (Lt Col K---)  of  the
AF Form 77.

He be awarded the Joint Service Medal.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AF Form 77 was prejudicial and  used  as  a  reprisal  for  making
protected communications to the Air Reserve Personnel Center.

He was the only member of the team who was  refused  a  Joint  Service
Medal.  Two members of the team had  Letters  of  Reprimand  but  they
received their ribbons.

In  support  of  his  request,  counsel  submits  a  statement,   with
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   the
contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the service under review, the applicant was enlisted  in  the
Regular Air Force from 11 Feb 60 - 16 Jan 64.  He had  prior  enlisted
status in the Air Force Reserve during the period 17 Jan 64 -  10  Feb
66 and 10 Dec 66 - 9 Dec 69.

The applicant was in civilian status from 10 Dec 69 until 25  Jan  81.
On 26 Jan 81, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve  in  the  grade  of
sergeant for a period of 3 years.  He continued to enlist and serve in
the Air Force Reserve since that time and was  progressively  promoted
to the permanent  grade  of  chief  master  sergeant  (E-9),  with  an
effective date and date of rank of 1 Jul 92.  Effective 30 May 99, his
name was placed on the Retired Reserve  List  awaiting  pay.   He  was
credited with 20 years, 11 months and 7 days of  satisfactory  Federal
service.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that he  was
assigned to Operation Joint Endeavor (TDY for 179 days) on 17 Mar  96.
On 14 Jun 96 he collapsed at work and was hospitalized (14-19 Jun) and
returned fit for  duty.   On  12  Jul  96,  he  was  relieved  of  his
assignment as Quality Assurance  Inspector  for  DCMC-GE  in  and  was
advised he would be reassigned to the Defense Logistics Agency (DCMCI-
International) at .  The applicant’s original 179 day TDY orders  were
modified to reflect a release date of 16 Aug 96, granting him a  total
of 154 days.

The contested Letter of Evaluation (LOE), covering the  period  17 Mar
96 through 15 Jul 96, was rendered by his former commander (Lt Col K---
) on 7 Sep 96 due to the applicant being under his  supervision  while
TDY for 60 or more days.

For applicant’s participation in Operation Joint Endeavor, the  former
commander, Lt Col K---, forwarded to  the  him  [applicant]  the  NATO
medal for service with NATO on operations in relation  to  the  former
during the period 17 Mar 96 - 15 Jul 96; and, was also  informed  that
he earned and was entitled to wear  the  Armed  Forces  Service  Medal
(AFSM).

In response to the applicant’s Department of Defense Inspector General
(DOD IG) complaint, a preliminary inquiry  was  conducted  by  DOD  IG
concerning the allegations that he was  reprised  against  for  making
protected communications to the Air Reserve  Personnel  Center  (ARPC)
Inspector General and the DOD  IG.   Specifically,  applicant  alleged
that the commander, Lt Col K---, directed  he  be  relieved  of  duty,
curtailed his tour to Joint  Endeavor,  denied  him  a  Joint  Service
Medal, and gave him an unfavorable evaluation.  The DOD IG found  that
the applicant’s allegations were not timely and concluded that further
investigation was unwarranted because of the length of time since  his
alleged adverse  personnel  actions  occurred.   Accordingly,  DOD  IG
considered the matter closed and suggested the applicant  contact  the
AFBCMR for correction of his records.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  Through further  research  with  HQ  AFRC/DSZ,  they
indicated that there is no record of the applicant’s contested AF Form
77 in his military personnel records or on microfiche.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Military  Personnel  Division,  HQ  AFRC/DPM,  stated  that   the
documentation provided  validates  only  that  the  applicant  may  be
authorized to receive the Armed Forces Services Medal (AFSM), based on
the service performed during the period  of  time  in  question.   The
periods  of  service  recognized  for  individuals   deployed   during
Operation JOINT ENDEAVOR were 15 Dec 95 to 19 Dec 96.   The  Secretary
of Defense approved award  of  the  AFSM  effective  26  Feb  96,  for
operations relating to the former         .   DPM  indicated  that  it
appears the applicant does in fact meet basic eligibility criteria for
award  of  the  AFSM.   However,  the  governing  DoD  manual  and  AF
instruction and the Air Force Reserve Command  (ARC)  supplement  have
the final approval authority for this action vested  with  commanders.
Thus, based on the available documents under review, DPM  stated  that
there is insufficient evidence presented to suggest  the  decision  of
the applicant’s commander to remove him from  receiving  any  type  of
award should be overturned.  DPM recommended the  applicant’s  request
for the award be denied.

As to the AF Form 77, DPM recommended the applicant submit the  report
to the Evaluations Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in accordance with  AFI
36-2401 for appropriate review (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion concerning the decorations
and indicated that  the  additional  documentation  he  provided  will
indicate that he had received the NATO medal; and, in the letter  from
the evaluator (Lt Col K---), he was eligible for  all  ribbons  except
for the Joint Service  ribbon—all  other  members  of  the  Team  were
granted.  He feels that  in  light  of  the  less  than  truthful  and
professional manner in which he was treated by Lt Col K---, the ribbon
in question should be included in any final decision.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Division, HQ AFRC/DPM, provided information  on
authorized DOD/Joint Decorations or awards.  DPM  indicated  that  the
Joint Meritorious Unit Award (JMUA) recognizes  entire  organizations.
The intent is to recognize joint units or activities.  These  requests
are submitted from the  respective  joint  unit  or  activity  through
command channels and approved at SECDEF or JCS level.  DPM stated that
the lack of information provided prevents their office from  making  a
determination in this  case.   As  DPM  previously  stated,  there  is
insufficient evidence presented to  suggest  that  the  applicant  was
prevented from receiving any type of a joint award authorized  by  DOD
1348.33M.

With regard to the AF Form 77 in question,  the  governing  Air  Force
instruction stipulates that  the  AF  Form  77  should  have  been  an
optional report.  DPM stated that proper disposition of the AF Form 77
is as follows:  update by military personnel flight (MPF), forward  to
rater, or member’s orderly room to be used when  completing  the  next
enlisted performance report (EPR), at that point, the AF  Form  77  is
destroyed or given to the ratee.  It should not be maintained  in  the
member’s records, therefore, based on this  information,  DPM  concurs
with the applicant’s request to remove the document from his  records.
Optional LOEs are sent to a  gaining  commander  when  a  member  PCSs
(permanent change of station) prior to a report  being  written.   DPM
cannot comment on the applicant’s contention that he  suffered  unduly
based on the comments made by the rater.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  applicant  on  2
August 1999 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________

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 concerning award  of  the
Joint Service Award.  Since the applicant’s allegation of reprisal was
not substantiated, it would appear that the  applicant’s  case  should
not be treated under the Military Whistleblower Protection provisions.
 Accordingly, his  case  was  considered  by  this  Board,  not  as  a
whistleblower case, but as any  other  application  submitted  to  the
Board alleging error or injustice, as provided  by  Title  10,  U.  S.
Code, Section 1552.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's  complete
submission in judging the merits of the  case.   Other  than  his  own
assertions, the applicant has not provided any  documentation  showing
that he was  eligible  for  the  Joint  Service  Award  and  that  the
commander withdraw his name for award of the  cited  decoration  as  a
means of reprisal.  In view of the foregoing, and in  the  absence  of
substantive evidence that the commander’s actions were contrary to the
prevailing directive or otherwise constituted an abuse of  discretion,
we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  the
applicant’s request for award of the Joint  Service  Award.   Although
the applicant asserts that the dates on his NATO medal are  incorrect,
no evidence has been presented to substantiate this claim.  As to  the
contested Letter of Evaluation (LOE), we  note  that  the  applicant’s
military personnel records were reviewed by the appropriate Air  Force
office and it was confirmed that the contested LOE is not filed in his
records.  Hence, this is a moot issue.  With regard to the applicant’s
request for an apology from his former evaluator, since  this  Board’s
charter under 10 USC 1552 extends solely to the correction of military
records, favorable consideration of such a request is not possible.

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.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 28 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and
                 DoD inquiry (withdrawn).
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 3 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Sep 98.
   Exhibit E.  Memorandum from applicant, dated 10 Nov 98,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 1 Jul 99
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Aug 99.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair