ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00792
INDEX CODE: 107
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster
(2OLC), covering the period be upgraded to an Air Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM) with One OLC (1OLC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The AFCM was not processed properly after the initiation to make an
upgrade was made. He did follow the chain of command and tried to
correct the injustice but the one year time frame in accordance with
AFI 36-2803 had elapsed.
Applicant submitted an additional statement regarding his perceptions
about why his decoration was downgraded.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On , the Board considered and denied applicant’s request
(Exhibit F).
On , the applicant provided a five-page statement, with attachments,
and requests the Board reconsider his application (see Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this
application and indicated that the applicant requests his application
be reconsidered not based on supplemental promotion but on the
injustice he suffered. The original technical advisory was not based
in any way on consideration for supplemental promotion but on the
criteria for awards and decorations. Recommendations for decorations
for meritorious service are based upon a completed period of service
and recommendations for outstanding achievement are based on a
single…accomplishment separate and distinct from regularly assigned
duties, such as…accomplishments in a temporary duty (TDY) status,
according to AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations
Program, . DPPPR believes the applicant received the appropriate
decoration for his accomplishments and recommends disapproval of the
applicant’s request for upgrade of his AFAM with 2OLC to the AFCM with
1OLC.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is
attached at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a five-page
response.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After careful consideration
of applicant’s request and his most recent statement, we are not
sufficiently persuaded that a revision of the earlier determination in
this case is warranted. The Air Force provided a clear understanding
of the criteria to be used for award of the AFCM, 1OLC, in their
advisory opinion, dated . As noted by the Air Force in their
advisory opinion, the applicant requests his application be
reconsidered not based on supplemental promotion but on the injustice
he suffered. The Air Force states that the original technical
advisory, dated , was not based in any way on consideration for
supplemental promotion but on the criteria for awards and decorations.
Further, while the applicant was recommended for the AFCM, 2OLC, by
his supervisor, the award was downgraded to the AFAM with 1OLC by his
commander and both the supervisor and commander signed the form on
. Therefore, we believe the applicant received the appropriate
decoration for his accomplishments. In view of the foregoing, the
earlier decision to deny his application is affirmed.
_________________________________________________________________
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 18 January 2000, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Member
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. ROP, dated 31 Oct 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. DD Fm 149, dated 7 Sep 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 24 Sep 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Oct 99.
Exhibit J. Letter fr applicant, dated 10 Oct 99, w/atchs.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00668
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the squadron commander did not request a change of the closeout date of the decoration until 9 Jul 01, and the applicant applied for supplemental promotion consideration on 27 Aug 01, after the closeout date was changed. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB asserts there is no conclusive evidence the amended/resubmitted decoration was placed into official...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E9 to chief master sergeant (promotions effective Jan 98 - Dec 98). However, if the Board upgrades the decoration as requested, it could direct supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 98E9. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00890
His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed response and additional documentary evidence which are attached...
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...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his OSB, the board discrepancy report, AFCM (2OLC) citation, orders awarding him the AFAM and AFCM (1OLC), AFCM (1OLC) certificate and citation, and electronic mail (e-mail) regarding a decoration status. Regarding the applicant’s belief that the AFAM citation should have been included in his OSR in time for the board, DPPPA indicated that the decoration closeout date was 10 Jun 99, and the special order was published on 19 Mar 00. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02652
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02652 INDEX CODE: 131.01, 107.00 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 FEB 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the Calendar Year 2004A (CY04A) Major Central Selection Board (CSB) with inclusion of...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and indicated that although no documentation has been provided showing the reason for the delay in awarding the AAM, 2OLC, and no copy of the recommendation package was provided, the decoration was processed and awarded within the time limits required. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2)...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01028
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01028 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Special Order G-065 dated 17 February 2004, awarding him the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be corrected to reflect the date of the original Recommendation for Decoration Printout (DÉCOR 6) requested in October 2002. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03304 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect receipt of the following awards: 1. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 was up to date when he separated on 22 December 1997. His request for...