RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00539
INDEX CODE 107.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for service
performed from 22 August 1968 to 31 January 1970.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told he would be awarded the MSM upon retirement. He received
the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) instead. He packed his
household goods without reading the citation. Years later he read the
citation and noticed that it indicates “Citation to Accompany the
Award of the Meritorious Service Medal” for the period in question.
He provides a copy of the citation, which appears to include some kind
of official seal and indicates the award received for service during
the period in question was the MSM. He also includes a certificate
reflecting the award for the period in question was the AFCM, as well
as the award orders indicating the award for the period in question
was the AFCM.
A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant retired in the grade of major on 1 February 1970 with 23
years, 10 months and 8 days of active service. The Special Order G-X,
dated 5 January 1970, indicates that he received the AFCM for the
period in question. His DD form 214 also reflects award of the AFCM,
not the MSM.
As a result of this application, HQ AFPC/DPPPR forwarded a new
citation, reflecting award of the AFCM vice the MSM, to the applicant
on 23 April 1999.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, contends that
the citation for the MSM furnished by the applicant did not have the
USAF seal on it, was not right-margin justified, and did not seem to
be formatted as required. The citation for the MSM furnished by the
applicant may have been the proposed citation submitted in the
original recommendation package. However, since the 20th Air Division
no longer exists, there is no longer any way to verify what was in the
original recommendation package. The applicant has not provided any
documentation showing he contacted his unit to ascertain why he
received the lessor decoration or to substantiate his claim that he
was “promised” the MSM. Denial is recommended.
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant contends the citation to accompany the award of the MSM
was printed on Aerospace Defense Command (ADC) paper with the official
seal of the ADC. He can’t be responsible for the administrative
errors caused by the XXth Air Division personnel. The certificate was
made up at HQ ADC. He argues that regulations governing citations do
change after 29 years.
He encloses the original citation. [The text is printed over the blue
logo of the ADC and a gold paper seal is affixed to the citation. The
word “official” is legible on the seal. While many of the remaining
letters encircling the seal are illegible, what is decipherable
appears to indicate it was the XXth Air Division’s seal].
The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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, we are not
persuaded that relief is warranted. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted, as was the citation he provided in his rebuttal. However, the
Special Order dated 5 January 1970 reflects that the award he received
for the pertinent period was the AFCM, not the MSM. His DD Form 214
also indicates he received the AFCM. We cannot speculate as to why the
citation copy the applicant has reflects award of the MSM when all
official documentation in his available military records indicates he
received the AFCM. The delay in filing this appeal precludes us from
verifying what was in the original recommendation package since the
XXth Air Division no longer exists. The applicant’s submission does
not provide sufficiently persuasive evidence substantiating his
contention that he should have received the MSM vice the AFCM.
Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting this
appeal.
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 16 December 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 23 Apr 99, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 May 99, w/atch.
MARTHA MAUST
Panel Chair
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03569 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY96A (4 Mar 96) Major Selection Board (P0496A), with inclusion of the corrected Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) provided; the citations...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00013
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. However, they find it plausible that his commander, not waiting for the decoration package to be completed, assumed an MSM would be approved, and read an MSM citation at the applicant’s retirement ceremony. While the applicant may have been recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) as a retirement decoration, we find no evidence that the recommendation had been completed and approved.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00519
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00519 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 1 OLC), he was awarded for the period 6 July 2000 to 20 October 2001, be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal. Despite the fact the erroneous...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00186
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00186 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Third Oak Leaf Cluster (3OLC), for the period 3 August 1997 to 27 February 2001, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and he be considered for promotion to the grade...
Her request for senior rater endorsement on the EPR should not be granted at this time. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides the wing commander’s concurrence of her request for senior rater indorsement. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant amending the MSM citation to include...
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that competent authority determined that his actions on 9 May 1988, near Enterprise, Kansas, merited the award of the Airman’s Medal for heroism, rather than the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster. Exhibit D. Applicant’s Letter, dated 6 May 99, w/atch. RICHARD A....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00453
They requested he provide a copy of the special order awarding the AFCM. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he has the original copy of the citation with the raised seal and official certificate, however, he finds it hard to believe that somewhere there is not a copy of the...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00246
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: As a squadron commander, he received an OPR that was inconsistent with prior evaluation due to a personality conflict with the wing commander and lack of feedback from the logistics group commander. The additional rater of the contested report was also the additional rater for the previous OPR closing 16 Mar 00. He also indicated he received no performance feedback.