RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01284
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears he is requesting  consideration  for  award  of  the  Meritorious
Service Medal, with Second Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM 2OLC), for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was singled out and given inequitable treatment by his  squadron  section
commander, Lt Col ----, upon nearing retirement in  1998.   He  requested  a
redress of wrong through his chain of command, but  this  entire  chain  was
under the command of ---/CC  (Gen  ----)  -  the  person  who  directed  his
squadron section commander to take  the  actions.   He  therefore  feels  he
could not have gotten a fair hearing from anyone under his command.  He  has
provided a summary of the events for the Board’s review.

In support of his request, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  copies
of a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), his response to the LOA, his Request  for
Redress of Wrong with  the  response  from  his  chain  of  command  and  HQ
USAF/JAG, and additional documents associated with the issues cited  in  his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)  is  23
September 1970.  He was promoted to the grade of chief master  sergeant  (E-
9) with an effective date and date of rank of 1 November 1991.

Applicant's last seven Senior Enlisted Performance  Reports,  while  serving
in the grade of E-9, reflect an overall evaluation of “5”  for  the  periods
ending 15 April 1992 through 30 September 1997.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that, on 23  April
1998, he was given a  Letter  of  Admonishment  (LOA)  for  engaging  in  an
adulterous relationship in 1993 with  a  married  woman  and  was  therefore
relieved of his duties as First  Sergeant.   Applicant  provided  a  written
response to the LOA on 27 April 1998.  After reviewing applicant’s  response
to the LOA, his squadron section commander determined that the  decision  to
relieve the applicant from his duties as First Sergeant would stand.

On 18 May 1998, the applicant submitted a Request for Redress  of  Wrong  to
his squadron section commander.   Specifically,  requesting  reconsideration
of her actions pertaining to serving him  with  an  LOA,  removal  from  his
position as First Sergeant  and  the  decision  to  not  submit  him  for  a
retirement   award.    After   considering   applicant’s   submission    for
reconsideration, the squadron section commander found no  compelling  reason
to disturb her earlier decision regarding the  retirement  decoration.   The
applicant then submitted his appeal for Redress  of  Wrong  up  through  his
chain of command and his requests for redress were denied.

On 30 September 1998, the applicant was relieved from active duty under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Sufficient Service for  Retirement)  and  retired
in the grade of E-9 on 1 October 1998.  He  had  completed  a  total  of  28
years and 8 days of active service for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied.  DPPPR stated  that  the
inclusive dates of the applicant’s last decoration  (Air  Force  Achievement
Medal, with First Oak Leaf Cluster) are 12 December 1994 to 30  April  1995.
The applicant was the First  Sergeant  of  the  Headquarters  Squadron,  ---
Command, from 1992 until his 1998  retirement.   He  received  a  Letter  of
Admonishment (LOA), was relieved  of  his  duties  as  First  Sergeant,  and
denied a retirement decoration based on actions that were  being  publicized
on --- AFB by the applicant and his [then] spouse.  The  applicant  appealed
these actions and requested a retirement decoration to the --- Commander, --
th Air Force commander and through the Judge Advocate General channels.   He
was informed by each that the appropriate action  had  been  taken  and  his
requests  were  denied.   Retirement  decorations  require  review  of   the
individual’s records and consideration of the individual’s entire career  to
determine the level of decoration; however, the package  is  prepared  using
the most  recent  period  of  service.   It  is  DPPPR’s  opinion  that  the
applicant’s commander took the appropriate actions, in accordance  with  the
governing  Air  Force  instruction  to  deny  the  applicant  a   retirement
decoration, as did the HQ --- commander, the --th Air  Force  commander  and
HQ USAF/JAG.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is  at  Exhibit
C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that, while  there
is nothing factually inaccurate in their letter,  it  leads  the  reader  to
false conclusions. He publicized the facts of the  affair  in  mid  to  late
1992 to his commanding officer and to every subsequent commander  thereafter
and they took appropriate action at that time.  The 1998 phone call  by  his
spouse was old  news,  he  had  “publicized”  the  events  over  five  years
earlier.  His January 1995  reenlistment  meant  that  past  sins  were  not
sufficient to disallow future attainments -- this began a new  “most  recent
period  of  service.”   After  publicizing  the  affair  to  his  commanding
officers, he received firewall Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs)  and  his
Performance Feedback Worksheets (PFWs) were exemplary.  He was not denied  a
Good Conduct Medal for any of the time  in  question.   As  to  the  redress
issue, fair treatment was impossible.  His records and  actions  during  the
period of service in question do  place  him  above  his  peers.   The  most
recent  period  of  service,  as  he  understands  it,  is  the  total  time
encompassed by the current enlistment.  He reenlisted in  1995,  the  affair
and its publication were in 1992, and the MSM was  denied  in  1998.   Given
the facts of his case and remembering the  time  line,  he  cannot  see  any
outcome except approval of his request for award of  the  MSM.   Applicant’s
complete response 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 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 error or injustice.  Due to applicant’s misconduct, he was  not
recommended for a decoration at retirement.  We commend  the  applicant  for
his service to his country; however, a decoration at retirement  is  not  an
automatic entitlement.  We noted that the applicant’s  request  for  redress
of wrongs under Article 138, UCMJ, was denied by the commander of  the  --th
Air Force, that the decision was sustained by HQ USAF/JAG on behalf  of  the
Secretary of the Air Force, and  that  the  commander  of  the  ---  Command
considered the matter closed.  In accordance with the  governing  Air  Force
instruction, decorations cannot be awarded or presented to any person  whose
entire service for the period covered has not been honorable.  Evidence  has
not been presented which shows to our satisfaction that Air Force policy  or
instructions  were  violated  by  not  awarding  the  applicant   retirement
recognition in the form of an MSM.  In view of the above and in the  absence
of sufficient evidence that the commander’s actions  were  contrary  to  the
prevailing instruction or otherwise constituted an abuse of  discretion,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-01284
in Executive Session on 28 August 2003, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 20 Jun 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 9 Jul 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair