RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04071
INDEX NUMBER: 107.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Air Force Achievement Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM, 1 OLC),
awarded for the period 24 April 1999 to 23 April 2001, be upgraded to an
Air Force Commendation Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 2 OLC), or in
the alternative, the AFAM, 1 OLC, be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was recommended for award of the AFCM, 2 OLC; however, due to an
administrative failure, it was downgraded to the AFAM, 1 OLC. His
immediate chain of command was never contacted regarding the downgrading of
the recommendation and was never provided an opportunity to submit
additional justification for the AFCM.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of the orders and
citation/certificate to accompany the award of the AFAM, 1 OLC, and
statements from his former chain of command officials.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical
sergeant.
On 29 December 2000, a Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) was
prepared for the purpose of recommending the applicant for an end-of-tour
decoration.
On 17 May 2001, he was awarded the AFAM, 1 OLC, for meritorious service
during the period 24 April 1999 to 23 April 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
although the request for reconsideration was properly processed through
administrative channels, the final approval authority refused to consider
processing the request. The final approval authority stated that he did
not support upgrading the award and that the AFAM was the appropriate
decoration.
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The approval authorities did not give any legitimate consideration to the
award of the AFAM, 1 OLC. The decoration he received is inaccurate and not
representative of his service during the period of the award. He performed
his military duties honorably. His immediate chain of command recognized
his performance and recommended him for an AFCM. Furthermore, the blatant
inaccuracies contained within the award citation punctuate the misgivings
of the system.
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 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; however, 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 to
warrant upgrading the AFAM, 1 OLC, to the AFCM, 2 OLC. Nor did the
evidence provided persuade us that the AFAM, 1OLC, should be removed from
the applicant’s records. In this regard, we note that the governing
instruction, AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.5, provides that a member may refuse
to accept an approved decoration and may elect not to wear that decoration.
However, the decoration is updated as an approved award and the documents
which prove the individual did not accept the award are filed in the
individual’s Unit Personnel Records Group (UPRG) along with a copy of the
citation and special order. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence
of 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-2002-04071
in Executive Session on 14 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 2 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Apr 04.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00519
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00519 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 1 OLC), he was awarded for the period 6 July 2000 to 20 October 2001, be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal. Despite the fact the erroneous...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00368
The applicant’s total weighted promotion score for the cycle 05E6 was 300.98 and the score required for selection in her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 302.09. We note that, in order for a decoration to be credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the DECOR-6 must be before the date of selections for a particular cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2002-00614-2
In letters, dated 11 November 2003 and 10 February 2004, the applicant requests the AFCM, 3 OLC, be upgraded to the MSM, 2 OLC, and consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by an SSB for the P0501B board. Applicant’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibits K and L. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the Board make the determination concerning the applicant’s request to upgrade...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01576
His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be upgraded to a Airman’s Medal (AmnM) for action performed on 13 November 1982. b. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 1 October 1984, he was awarded an Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) for Heroism for his actions on 13 November 1982. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00054
The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he received information that one of the CENTAF Decoration Board members misled the board’s deliberations by claiming the applicant’s unit did not support the OEF making its members ineligible for BSM consideration. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Review, dated 8 May 04. ROSCOE HINTON JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On , the Board considered and denied applicant’s request (Exhibit F). On , the applicant provided a five-page statement, with attachments, and requests the Board reconsider his application (see Exhibit G). DPPPR believes the applicant received the appropriate decoration for his accomplishments and recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for upgrade of his AFAM with 2OLC to the AFCM with 1OLC.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and a copy of a certificate/citation to accompany the award of the AFAM, 1 OLC. 56th Mission Support Squadron special order GB-0408, dated 8 July 1993, awarded the applicant the AFAM, 1 OLC, for meritorious service during the period 5 April 1989 to 31 October 1993. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification for his delay in clearing up the many discrepancies regarding the AFAM, 1 OLC for the October to December...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02017
Therefore the only remaining issue before the Board is the award of the ICM. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 15 September 2006, for review and response. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03794
In BC-2004-02294, the AFBCMR awarded a DFC to an applicant who had also completed more than the required ten missions as a lead navigator and an additional oak leaf cluster for completion of a tour of 32 combat missions. AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that although the applicant’s records indicate that he completed a total of 35 combat missions and he has submitted a DFC recommendation signed by his former commander, in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...