RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 0101372
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: None Indicated
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Meritorious Service Medal for the period 2 December 1990 to 15 June
1991 be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His recommendation for the BSM was disapproved by Central Air Force
(CENTAF) due to CENTAF not permitting more than four (4) awards to be given
per unit.
In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of the Bronze
Star award recommendation package. Applicant’s complete submission is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a Reserve officer serving on extended active duty in the
grade of colonel. A resume of his assignments, extracted from the
Personnel Data System (PDS), is at Exhibit B. The PDS further shows that
he has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal with 3 oak leaf clusters
(OLCs), Air Force Commendation Medal, and the Air Force Achievement Medal
with 1 OLC.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Division, AFRC/DPM, indicates that CENTAF was the
approval agency for all decorations associated with Desert Shield/Storm
operations and they cannot provide rationale for CENTAF’s disapproval. DPM
states that a request for reconsideration of a disapproved or downgraded
award recommendation must be placed in official channels within 1 year from
the date of the awarding authority’s decision. Therefore, DPM recommends
the applicant’s request be denied (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10
August 2001 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by
the Air Force. While his case file reflects a recommendation package for
the award of the BSM was submitted on 6 December 1991, the final decision
was not to award him for this decoration. The recommendation package is a
recommendation only; the decision to approve or disapprove such a
recommendation rests with a award approving authority. Other than his own
assertions, the applicant has not provided evidence which was unavailable
during the processing of the award recommendation. Furthermore, we have
seen no evidence indicating the recommendation for the award of the BSM was
improperly downgraded or that the award approving authority’s decision
represented an abuse of discretionary authority. Therefore, we agree with
the opinion of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the
conclusion that the applicant has not been a victim of an error or
injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find not
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 3 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 2000 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPM, dated 19 July 2001.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 August 2001.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00054
The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he received information that one of the CENTAF Decoration Board members misled the board’s deliberations by claiming the applicant’s unit did not support the OEF making its members ineligible for BSM consideration. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Review, dated 8 May 04. ROSCOE HINTON JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03542
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR indicated that after a complete review of the documentation provided by the applicant, they were unable to find any evidence of a recommendation from the applicant’s chain of command. The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) has designated the Commander, USCENTAF (COMUSCENTAF) as the approval authority for all Air Force decorations based solely upon service, performance, or achievements...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00845
His supervisor told him immediately after the attack that he was recommending him for the BSM and mentioned it again when he signed his performance report. The complete DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 14 May 07, the applicant states he was never awarded or aware that he had received the AFCM for his services in Vietnam. Other than his own...
Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selection for the cycle in question. AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00915
In support of his appeal, applicant’s counsel has provided a brief that is at Exhibit A. DPPPR states that many members of the applicant’s organization, Rustic FAC (Forward Air Controller) did not receive recognition of specific flights due to rapid mission requirements. In addition, this Board has considered several applications from members of the Rustic FAC units and found that their true accomplishments were not known at the time they were considered for awards because their duties...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the time period in question the applicant, a Reservist, served on active duty from 25 Jan 91-21 May 91. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states the applicant has not provided any documentation showing a written recommendation was submitted into official...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03365
Since the 7th and 13th Air Forces’ Decoration Review Boards reviewed all decorations at that time, they were in the best position to determine which recommendations for the BSM should be awarded and which should be downgraded to the AFCM in order to provide consistency in decorations. DPPPR concluded by stating that the applicant has not made any effort for almost 30 years to have his AFCM (1OLC) upgraded; has not provided any documents showing he submitted a request for upgrade through...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 01781
The DMSM is awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense to any active duty member of the United States Armed Forces who, after 3 Nov 1977, while serving in a joint activity distinguishes himself or herself by noncombat meritorious achievement or service. His former commander while deployed to Iraq informed him that he had submitted him for a higher decoration and feared his career would suffer if he requested reconsideration from AFOSI. ...