RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01050
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), fourth oak leaf cluster (4OLC),
awarded on occasion of her retirement from the Air Force, be upgraded to a
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The award that was originally written as an MSM was subjectively changed.
The award of an AFCM for retirement medal was inconsistent with the
squadron's criteria for awarding MSMs. She made numerous attempts to have
her AFCM upgraded through her Congressman, her former wing commander, and
the Inspector General. She finds it shameful that after all she had done
for the squadron and the Air Force she was sent away in such a manner
because of a subjective decision made by her commander.
In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, copies
of documents associated with her attempts to have the medal upgraded. Her
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 8
Apr 77. She was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 96.
On 1 Jul 01, she voluntarily retired from the Air Force for length of
service. She served 23 years, 2 months, and 23 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPPR
states that in response to her request that her AFCM be upgraded, her wing
commander informed her that after review of her duty, conduct, and
decoration recommendation, he felt that award of the AFCM was appropriate.
Although her last two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) show an overall
rating of "5" on the reverse, the front of both EPRs are not "firewalled"
and it is noticeable that neither EPR recommends promotion and both were
only sent as high as the Rater's Rater for comment, even though she was
time-in-grade eligible for senior rater endorsement.
She did not provide any documentation that would substantiate her
allegations that her squadron commander discriminated against her nor did
she provide any statements from anyone in her chain of command to
substantiate her claims. She has not provided sufficient documentation
showing that her squadron commander subjectively changed the original
recommendation or that award of the AFCM was inconsistent with the
squadron's policy for retirement decorations. She has not provided any
documents showing that she performed her duties in such an outstanding
manner that would warrant award of the MSM.
The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 May
02 for review and comment 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After reviewing the available evidence of
record, we are not convinced that she has been the victim of an error or
injustice. Her contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find her
uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale
provide by the Air Force. Evidence has not been presented which would lead
us to believe that her commander acted inappropriately in deciding what
type of medal was warranted or that he abused his discretionary authority
in rendering that decision. We agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the
contrary, 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 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 Docket Number 02-01050 in
Executive Session on 27 Jun 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 30 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
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.
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...
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...
In support of his request the applicant provided documentation from the awarding authority indicating that if the EPR had been a "5" at the time it was originally rendered, he would have awarded the applicant an AFCM and subsequently upgraded the medal. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to recommend supplemental consideration for these cycles. ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01144 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00363
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. However, other than his own assertions, no evidence has been presented to show that the recommendation and processing of the AFCM was not in accordance with the applicable Air Force Instruction. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 23 Feb 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00511
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-00511 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for the period 24 August 1997 through 6 August 1999. On 12 July 2002, applicant requested correction of his military records by removing his EPR dated 31 August 1998 - 31 July 1999. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01500
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), fourth oak leaf cluster (4OLC), awarded for the period 16 November 98 through 23 July 2001, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and he be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board for...
He also directed that the applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration with her corrected record. On 5 Dec 96, the Board recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Feb 91 be accepted for file in its proper sequence; that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Jun 91 be amended in Section I to show the period of the report as 19 Feb 91 through 18 Jun 91 and the reason for the report as...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00163
On 1 Mar 04, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant that his records did not indicate he was deployed to the Persian Gulf in direct support of Operation Southern Watch, and the locally-produced certificate for the AFEM was not a valid or official document. The applicant submitted a locally produced certificate for the AFEM in support of Operation Southern Watch for the period of 10 Jan 99-3 Mar 99. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
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.