Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02993
Original file (BC-2002-02993.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02993
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

      JEFFREY CADWELL        COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Block 13 of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge  from
Active Duty, be changed to reflect  that  he  was  awarded  the  Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He participated in Operation Southern Watch in  Saudi  Arabia  from  8
August 2000 to 15 November 2000 and, as a result,  should  be  awarded
the AFEM.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on  6
May 1998.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of Senior Airman
(SRA/E-4) with a date of rank of 6 May 01.

On  9  October  2000,  while  stationed  in  Saudi  Arabia  supporting
Operation Southern  Watch,  applicant  received  an  Article  15,  for
sleeping at his sentinel post.  The punishment imposed was a suspended
reduction in grade to Airman (AMN/E-2), forfeiture of $150  per  month
for two months, and a  reprimand.   His  commander  characterized  the
applicant’s service as being not honorable and directed that applicant
not be awarded the AFEM.

The applicant was involuntarily discharged, after his  first  term  of
service, on 20  May  2002,  with  an  honorable  discharge  under  the
provisions of AFI  36-3208,  Unsatisfactory  Performance  (Failure  of
Career Development Courses).  Applicant had served 4 years and 15 days
of active duty and was serving in the grade of  SRA  at  the  time  of
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR, recommended disapproval  of  the  applicant’s  request.
While DPPPR noted that the applicant would normally have been  awarded
the AFEM,  he  was  not  eligible  due  to  his  deployed  commander’s
direction to the contrary.  DPPPR cited DoD Manual 1348-33-M, pages 6-
8, as the basis for the deployed commander’s  authority  to  deny  the
award.  The  manual  requires  that  the  service  of  the  member  be
honorable in order for him to qualify for the award.  (Exhibit C)

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends that he is being judged solely on the  incident
that took place while TDY to Saudi Arabia.  The applicant argues  that
other Air Force members have one or more Article 15’s that do not seem
to have had as negative an impact on their careers  as  was  the  case
with his career.

He offers the following in support of his claim.  That:

           a. He  completed  his  tour  in  Saudi  Arabia  even  after
receiving the Article 15.

           b. This was the only Article 15 he received while on active
duty.

           c. After his six-month suspended ‘bust’ (through  13  April
2001) he was promoted from Airman First Class to SRA on 6 May 2001.

           d. He received the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM).

           e. He was honorably discharged.

The applicant feels that he completed his service  in  a  satisfactory
manner and should be awarded  the  Armed  Forces  Expeditionary  Medal
(AFEM).

The applicant’s rebuttal 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
The board noted that while the applicant substantiated his eligibility
for the award, his commander in the field directed  that,  because  of
the Article 15 punishment for sleeping on sentinel duty,  he  did  not
consider the applicant’s service as honorable.  Although the applicant
clearly disagrees with  his  commanding  officer’s  judgment  in  this
matter, the determination was clearly within the  discretion  of  that
officer and there is no  evidence  that  he  abused  that  discretion.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  wWe  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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02993 in Executive Session on 18 March 2003, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 16 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, dtd 3 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dtd 21 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 27 Nov 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dtd 26 Dec 02.




                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02993

    Original file (BC-2002-02993.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. His commander characterized the applicant’s service as being not honorable and directed that applicant not be awarded the AFEM. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR, recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03220

    Original file (BC-2002-03220.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03220 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) be added to his DD Form 214. The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is awarded to service members who were deployed to Saudi Arabia in direct support of Operation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03220

    Original file (BC-2002-03220.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03220 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) be added to his DD Form 214. The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is awarded to service members who were deployed to Saudi Arabia in direct support of Operation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103414

    Original file (0103414.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that contrary to AFPC/DPPPR, the AFPC website does list Operation DESERT FOX (16 - 22 December 1998). Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03491

    Original file (BC-2002-03491.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR states that the applicant’s deployment order contains the remark that variations [in locations] are authorized; therefore, without the Travel Voucher, they cannot confirm that the applicant was in Saudi Arabia for 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days in order to verify his eligibility for the AFEM. Furthermore, if the applicant returned from Saudi Arabia on or about 1 March 2002, and he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00163

    Original file (BC-2004-00163.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-02010

    Original file (BC-2004-02010.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02010 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal (SWASM). In addition, the servicemember must be attached to or regularly serving for one or more days with an organization participating in ground...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01098

    Original file (BC-2004-01098.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Jul 04, during a records review, Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center identified an error in Item 13, Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commenation, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, and issued the applicant a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, reflecting the award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for the AFAM be denied. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03790

    Original file (BC-2002-03790.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant provided copies of a letter of appreciation, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a Certificate of Appreciation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 21 Feb 03 for review and response. As of this date, no response...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02128

    Original file (BC-2011-02128.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02128 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) be reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The DPSIDRA complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...