RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00095
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster
(2OLC), be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A recommendation for an MSM was not submitted because of the
Headquarters, Pacific Air Force (HQ PACAF) policy stating that a
technical sergeant did not merit the award due to rank restriction.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided supportive
statements, copies of his enlisted performance reports, documentation
pertaining to the award of the AFCM, and other documents associated
with the matter under review.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Jul 96.
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 20 Nov 84.
By Special Order GA-122, dated 3 Apr 98, the applicant was awarded the
AFCM (2OLC) for meritorious service during the period 5 Sep 94 to 17
Apr 98
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. According to DPPPR, the applicant has based
his request on the premise that HQ PACAF policy prevented him from
being recommended for the MSM. However, he could have been
recommended but his recommending official elected not to do so.
Furthermore, any endorsing official in the chain of command could have
recommended upgrade to the MSM at the time the AFCM was being
processed. In DPPPR’s view, they could find no basis for granting the
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant indicated that he understands that senior leadership must
closely scrutinize all decoration requests to ensure the meaning of a
decoration is not diluted or diminished in any way. However, he
firmly believes he worked very hard while at Misawa, and made the
sacrifices, commitment and dedication necessary to warrant recognition
above what was considered normal or appropriate for a technical
sergeant. He also believes the decoration submitted by his former
commander did not accurately represent his accomplishment during his
tenure there.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence which shows to our satisfaction that the applicant met the
established criteria for award of the MSM, we find no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 24 Aug 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 21 Jan 99.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Feb 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, applicant dated 8 Apr 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02179
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and documents associated with his request for upgrade of his AFCM. He was awarded the AFCM 2OLC as an end-of-tour decoration. His commander recommended award of the AFCM at the time of his departure, which was approved by the present commander, and his request for upgrade to the MSM was denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03695
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. It...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that his former supervisor concurred with the AFCM. Awards should be given for duty performance during the tour of duty. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 May 99.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01739
The AFOSR-S and the AFOSR-L were authorized on 12 Oct 80, and awarded to Air Force active duty, Reserve, and National Guard personnel who have been awarded credit for an OS tour after 1 Sep 80. In this regard, the AFOSR-S and the AFOSR-L were authorized on 12 Oct 80 for those members who had been credited with an OS tour after 1 Sep 80. The applicant did not complete an OS tour after that date.
His departure date of 15 Sep 98 was correctly used, as he was still assigned to the unit at McGuire at that time. Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. It is further recommended that he be provided...
DPPPA indicated that the second DoD/IG complaint in May 97, contending further reprisal alleging that his command denied him an MSM, downgraded his 14 Jun 97 EPR, and assigned him to an inappropriate position, for the protected communication to the IG and wing safety officials, did not substantiate the applicant was the victim of continued reprisal. With regard to applicant’s request for promotion, JA agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s assessments that should the Board void or modify either of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01243
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01243 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Award of the Purple Heart (PH) for injuries sustained in January and February 1968. He had completed a total of 20 years, 2 months and 7 days of active duty service for retirement. As of this date, no response has been received by...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00420
On 9 Apr 03, the applicant was awarded the contested AFCM 1OLC for the period 14 Feb 98 to 3 Jan 02, rather than 1 Dec 01, for meritorious service while assigned to the 86th Medical Squadron at Landstuhl, Germany. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR indicates since an IPCOT is not a condition for which an individual may be recommended for a decoration, it appears the recommending official submitted the applicant for an...
AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decoration Program, 1 January 1998, states that the recommending official determines the decoration and inclusive dates; it also states that decorations will not be based on an individual’s grade, but on the level of responsibility and manner of performance. The applicant provided a copy of his computer-generated Officer Selection Brief, dated 15 November 2000, and it reflects award of only two AFCMs. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01798 INDEX CODE: 107.00, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE APPLICANT HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), (2OLC), be considered in the promotion process for cycle 99E6 to technical sergeant. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to...