RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02694
            INDEX CODE  107.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be awarded a “mid-term commendation medal” [Air Force Commendation
Medal with 4th Oak Leaf Cluster for the period 30 September 1994 -  16
November 1997].

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons applicant believes he has been  the  victim  of  an  error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Included in the applicant’s appeal package is a  copy  of  a  DECOR-6,
Request  for  Decoration  Printout  (RDP),  which  was  requested   on
22 November 1997.  The RDP stated that, if a decoration was submitted,
the RDP with the  citation  and  narrative  must  be  returned  by  21
December 1997. If no decoration was to be  recommended,  the  RDP  and
nonrecommendation was to be returned by  5  December  1997.   The  RDP
reflects lines drawn through “AFCM” and that on 24 February  1998  her
commander did not recommend her for a decoration.

In her appeal, the applicant also contends  her  “last”  EPR  reflects
“nicks” which supposedly  precluded  her  from  receiving  the  award;
however, she does not specifically request that the report be  amended
or voided. Copies of this EPR and other performance  reports  for  the
period in question are attached at Exhibit B.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained  in  the  letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the  Air  Force.   Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed this  appeal
and provides facts pertaining to the case as well as  their  rationale
for why they recommend the appeal be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also evaluated  the
case and provided facts regarding this issue as well as his  rationale
for why the applicant’s request should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant/counsel on 18 November 1998 for review and comment within 30
days.  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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission,  a  majority  of
the Board is not  persuaded  that  relief  is  warranted.  Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, the Panel majority does not  find
these uncorroborated assertions, in and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.  The
applicant has  provided  insufficient  evidence  to  substantiate  her
claims. While her case file reflects a recommendation package  for  an
award was submitted on 22 November 1997, the final decision was not to
recommend her for a decoration at that time. The majority would  point
out that the RDP is a recommendation only; an award does not  have  to
be approved. Evidently, her squadron commander either changed his mind
about recommending her, or his commander believed  an  award  was  not
warranted at the time, or both. As an aside, it  was  noted  that  the
squadron did not meet the suspense dates indicated on the RDP. In  the
majority members’ experience, this is not an uncommon  occurrence  and
merely constitutes a harmless administrative error. While we are aware
of the impact this  nonrecommendation  may  have  on  the  applicant’s
career, approving her request would, in the Panel Majority’s view,  be
an injustice to others who have also missed promotion selection  by  a
narrow margin. The majority of the Board  therefore  agrees  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopts the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
her burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view
of the above and absent  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the
majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 April 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gregory W. Den Herder, Member
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Den Herder voted to grant and has  submitted  a  Minority  Report,
which  is  at  Exhibit  F.  The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 20 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Oct 98, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Nov 98.
   Exhibit F.  Minority Report.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR  98-02694





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                                   JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                                   Director
                                                   Air Force Review
Boards Agency

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT:

      The majority  of  the  Panel  has  recommended  the  applicant’s
request for a mid-tour decoration be denied.  However, I disagree.

      My colleagues appear to base their decision on the fact that the
applicant’s DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout  (RDP),  reflects
she was nonrecommended for the Air Force Commendation Medal,  4th  Oak
Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 4OLC).  While essentially true,  it  is  precisely
this form itself that arouses my suspicion that an injustice may  have
occurred.

      First, I invite your attention to the fact that the  applicant’s
squadron missed not only the suspense date to  recommend  her  for  an
award (21 December 1997), but also the suspense date  to  nonrecommend
her (5 December 1999).  Initially, the squadron commander was going to
recommend her for the AFCM 4OLC.  However, on  24  February  1998,  he
inexplicably changed his mind.  I carefully reviewed  the  applicant’s
available record, to include the performance reports for this  period,
and could  find  no  reason  why  the  commander  would  withdraw  his
recommendation.  In view of the fact that I could see no  valid  basis
for changing his recommendation, not to mention the length of time  he
took to do it, I believe the benefit of the doubt should  be  resolved
in  this  applicant’s  favor.   The  repercussions  of   this   highly
questionable and evidently unfounded nonrecommendation should  not  be
allowed to adversely affect her entire career.

      Therefore, in the interest of justice and  equity,  I  recommend
the applicant be awarded the AFCM 4OLC.




                                                    GREGORY   W.   DEN
HERDER
                                                   Panel Member