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  the  Calendar  Year  2002B  (CY02B)  Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record of accomplishments and performance during the period in  question
warranted  an  MSM  as  an  end-of-tour  decoration.   His   three   Officer
Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  and  deployment  Letter  of  Evaluation  (LOE)
covering  that  time  period  indicate   numerous   significant   successful
accomplishments that were either poorly reflected, or not  included  in  the
AFCM decoration citation.  It is his belief and contention that an  AFCM  as
an end-of-tour decoration was insufficient  and  the  unwillingness  of  the
reporting/approval chain to award an MSM was unjustified.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
documents associated with his request for upgrade of  his  AFCM,  copies  of
OPRs and a recommendation for the award of the MSM.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  He served as the  Chief,  Ground  Systems  Support  Section,  Basing
Branch, Plans Division, Directorate of Plans and Programs, Headquarters  Air
Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia during the  period  16  November  1998
through 23 July 2001. He also  was  deployed  for  a  four-month  period  to
Ecuador for a special project.  He was awarded the AFCM (4OLC) as an end-of-
tour decoration.

The applicant has two nonselections to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by
the CY01B and CY02A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.  The  CY03A
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board also  considered  the  applicant,
however, results have not been released.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial and stated that the applicant did not submit  a
written request for reconsideration through administrative channels  to  the
original final approval authority, nor was an inquiry submitted  within  the
one-year time frame allowed by AFI 36-2803.   His  former  rater  would  not
respond through email.  His former additional rater did respond to an  email
inquiry, and stated that the applicant…”lacked the initiative a field  grade
officer on headquarters staff  should  display,”  as  the  reason  that  the
applicant was recommended for award of an AFCM instead of  MSM.   It  should
also be noted that the applicant did not disagree with award  of  the  AFCM,
(4OLC) until he was non-selected  for  promotion.   The  applicant’s  former
supervisors all agreed that he was  not  entitled  to  the  MSM  after  much
discussion  of  the  matter.   The  applicant’s  duty  performance  and   in
comparison to decorations  awarded  to  the  applicant’s  peers,  and  their
decision should not be overturned.

The applicant originally submitted a DD Form 149 in April 2003, but  it  was
returned to him to  exhaust  all  administrative  channels.   He  could  not
obtain a copy of the original recommendation package, but did  obtain  email
responses to inquire  about  his  decoration  recommendation  and  chain  of
command support.

AFPC/DPPPR completion evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial  based  on  the  evidence  provided  and  the
recommendation of AFPC/DPPPR.

AFPC/DPPPO completion evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated  that  it’s  all
about taking care of your people.  He has been a supervisor, and  served  as
a missile combat crew commander,  flight  commander,  detachment  commander,
interim squadron commander,  and  expeditionary  squadron  commander  during
much of his Air Force  career.   He  has  always  known  the  importance  of
recognizing and rewarding people  appropriately  for  their  accomplishments
and job performance.  By downgrading the MSM to an AFCM, simply  because  of
petty personal differences, he believes his former rating  chain  failed  to
afford  him  that  same   recognition.    In   light   of   his   documented
accomplishments and performance, their decision to downgrade the  award  was
arbitrary, inconsistent, and  completely  unjustified.   He  recognizes  the
difficulty the AFBCMR faces in sorting through the issues of  this  type  of
request, and in making a responsible determination of a specific  injustice.
 However, he believes he has presented a justifiable  case  to  warrant  the
upgrade of his AFCM end-of-tour decoration to an MSM, and  hopes  the  board
approves and grants this request.  Thank you for.

In further support of his appeal, he submits a letter of  support  from  his
deployed commander.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Applicant’s 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  chain  of
command acted inappropriately in deciding what type of medal was  warranted.
 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  2003-01500  in
Executive Session on 13 November 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 Aug 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Sep 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 03.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 22 Oct 03, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair