RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02179
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM),  third  oak  leaf  cluster  (3OLC),
awarded for the period 4 Aug  98  through  10  Aug  99,  be  upgraded  to  a
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been awarded the MSM because he exceeded the  standards  that
are required for a technical sergeant (TSgt) to be  awarded  the  MSM.   His
performance during the 12-month period was truly remarkable and was  one  of
the best in the command.  He submitted a request for upgrade of the AFCM  to
his commander in an attempt to resolve this issue  at  a  lower  level.   He
received emails that led him to believe his commander  was  leaning  towards
approval; however, his commander denied his request simply stating  that  he
felt  the  AFCM  was  appropriate  for  his  grade  and  achievements.   The
commander was new and the applicant feels  that  his  decision  should  have
been based on his performance during the period in  which  he  was  not  the
commander rather than his personal feelings.  Another TSgt in  his  squadron
(TSgt B---) was awarded the MSM.  His performance and achievements while  at
Kunsan AB far exceeded those of TSgt  B---  as  evidenced  by  his  Enlisted
Performance  Report  (EPR)  and  other  documents  that  he  provided.   His
supervisory chain stated that he was the number one TSgt  in  the  squadron,
yet TSgt B--- received an MSM and he did not, which  proves  that  there  is
some inconsistency in the decoration process.

In response to the Air Force's request  for  additional  justification,  the
applicant states that the wing's policy was that if  an  individual  was  to
receive a decoration higher than what was expected for his/her  rank,  there
had to have been solid justification in the form of a  letter.   This  stems
from the unwritten rule that airmen should not get AFCMs  and  TSgts  should
not get MSMs.  This unwritten rule is common across the Air  Force,  yet  it
is common for wing commanders  to  award  decorations  to  individuals  even
though they do not meet the rank requirements.  He was  unable  to  retrieve
the wing policy but did  provide  a  memorandum  from  TSgt  B---,  who  was
awarded  an  MSM  3  months  after  the  applicant's  departure.    In   the
memorandum, TSgt B--- states that the applicant deserved  an  MSM  and  that
the flight leaders promised both of them an MSM.  The statement in  his  EPR
which reads "#1 TSgt in the command" confirms that his performance  exceeded
all TSgts in his career field.  His commander signed the EPR yet  failed  to
award him an MSM, demonstrating a lack  of  consistency  in  the  decoration
selection process.  His rater and SMSgt H--- were in his  chain  of  command
and were the main reasons he was not recommended for the MSM.   He  did  not
contact them or anyone else from his flight management.  His first  sergeant
sent the AFCM citation back to the flight and asked why  he  was  not  being
awarded the MSM.  The decision not to award him  the  MSM  was  unfair,  the
flight could have easily justified an MSM  but  instead  verbally  justified
why he should not receive one without any written documentation.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
documents associated  with  his  request  for  upgrade  of  his  AFCM.   His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  6  Feb  85.   He  has  been
progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant, having assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 01.   He  served  with  the
8th Supply Squadron at Kunsan AB, Korea during the period 4 Aug  98  through
10 Aug 00.  He was awarded the AFCM 2OLC as an end-of-tour  decoration.   As
a result of a previous AFBCMR case,  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  AFCM
2OLC.  As a result, the contested AFCM was changed from 2OLC to 3OLC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR states in his response to their  letter
to the applicant requesting additional  information  and  justification,  he
alleges that he was being discriminated against by being  awarded  the  AFCM
instead of the MSM.  He did not provide any documentation other  than  email
to show that he made a formal request, through administrative  channels,  to
have the decoration upgraded.  He did not provide any documentation  showing
that the policy prohibited award of the MSM to individuals with the rank  of
TSgt and below.  He did not provide any statements or documents from  anyone
in his [then] chain of command to  substantiate  his  allegations  of  bias,
only statements from peers and subordinates.  He has not explained  why,  if
his two immediate NCO supervisors  were  so  prejudiced  against  him,  they
continually submitted him for other  awards  throughout  his  assignment  in
Korea.  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.  Obviously  they  are  privy  to  information
that is not available for presentation to the AFBCMR.  The DPPPR  evaluation
is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he was unjustly denied  the  MSM  due  to  a  personal
conflict with management.  Proving discrimination  is  always  hard  to  do;
however, he has shown that his performance during the time exceeded many  of
his peers as well as some of his superiors.  He went  through  his  Military
Personnel Flight (MPF) at Moody AFB to the MPF at Kunsan  AB,  who  in  turn
went to the 8th Supply Squadron requesting upgrade.   There  is  no  written
policy that prohibits TSgts from getting an MSM.  If  there  was,  then  the
other TSgt would not have received an MSM,  3  months  after  the  applicant
departed.  He did not provide proof from anyone  in  his  chain  of  command
because he knows he would not have  received  anything  from  them.   He  is
accusing his immediate chain of command of  discrimination;  therefore,  why
would he ask them to support his allegations.

Within 4 months of his arrival at Kunsan AB he had completely revamped a  44
million dollar program.  This earned him the respect of his  flight  leaders
and commander (Major P---).  He was well respected for  his  accomplishments
and known throughout the wing and command.  He did not explain  why  he  was
continually submitted for awards by  his  supervisors  because  it  did  not
occur.  He fought for one of his subordinates to  be  awarded  a  medal  and
that is when everything went downhill.  Nobody in his element was  submitted
for an award since he won the awards.  His supervisor wrote  a  two-page  AF
Form 1206 for the Lance P. Sijan Award, only for his to find out later  that
he never intended to submit him.  His commander at the time was Major  P---.
 He was there until June 1999.  Major H--- knew of  his  accomplishments  on
paper but never knew what it took to get  there.   Major  H---  arrived  the
last 45 days of his tour.  His EPR was written before  Major  H---  arrived.
The applicant requested that his medal be written before Major P--- and  the
logistics commander left, but his supervisor held the Décor-6  until  a  few
days after Major P--- left.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
copies of documents previously submitted.   His  complete  submission,  with
attachments, 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.  After reviewing the available evidence  of
record, we are not convinced that he has been the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  His contentions are duly noted; however,  we  do  not  find  his
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 his 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  BC-2002-02179
in Executive Session on 27 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 02, w/acths.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 5 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jan 03, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair