RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02881

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  BARRY P. STEINBERG

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) awarded for the period 9 August  1990  to
29 November 1990; the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM)  awarded  for  the
period 23 November 1986 to 3 March 1992; and  a  Retention  Selection  Brief
(RSB) reflecting 2412 hours of E-3 flight time as a mission-crew member,  be
placed in his Officer Selection Record  (OSR)  for  the  21  September  2004
Special Board convened pursuant to the court approved settlement in  Berkley
v. Unites States.

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Counsel states, in part, that applicant is  a  class  member  of  a  pending
litigation in the United States Court of Federal Claims.   As  a  result  of
the settlement, applicant’s record  will  be  reconsidered  as  it  appeared
before the original FY93 RIF board.   Prior  to  applicant’s  consideration,
his records should be corrected.

In support of the appeal, counsel submits a corrected AM citation,  the  AAM
and AFCM citations, and a Flying History Report,  prepared  on  25  February
1992.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 January 1992, a  Recommendation  for  Decoration  Printout  (RDP)  was
prepared on the applicant for the purpose of recommending him for  award  of
an AAM.

A Flying History Report, prepared 25 February 1992, reflects that  applicant
completed a total of 2411.8 hours of E-3 flight time.

Applicant was considered and not selected for retention in the Air Force  by
the FY93 RIF board which convened on 20 July 1992.

On 26 August 1992, he was awarded the AAM for meritorious achievement  while
participating in sustained aerial flight during the period 9 August 1990  to
29 November 1990.

Applicant is to be reconsidered for retention  by  the  Calendar  Year  2004
Special  Board  on  21 September  2004,  pursuant  to  the   court   ordered
settlement in Berkley v. Unites States.  The court order agreement  provides
individuals the right to request corrections to their  records  pursuant  to
existing procedures.

Applicant’s complete OPR profile prior  to  the  FY93  RIF  board  reflected
overall assessments of “Meets Standards.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of applicant’s  requests.   AFPC/DPPPO  states,
in part, that although the period of the AAM was prior to the  convening  of
the RIF board, it was not approved and  awarded  until  26  August  1992  as
evidenced by Special Order GA-1867.  Inclusion of a decoration that did  not
exist at the time  of  the  board  significantly  departs  from  AF  policy.
Although the period of the AFCM was also prior to the convening of  the  RIF
board, no documentation was provided to  show  whether  the  decoration  was
ever approved, and if it was approved, if  it  was  approved  prior  to  the
board  convening.   Without  orders,  they  cannot  verify  its   existence.
Inclusion of a decoration that has not been approved  significantly  departs
from AF policy.  Applicant’s RSB at the time of the board, indicated he  had
no aeronautical rating.  The instruction sheet for review of  the  Retention
Selection Brief(RSB) that was provided to all  officers  meeting  the  board
states, “Flying hours will be reflected for  rated  officers,  but  not  for
nonrated aircrew members.”  Therefore, applicant’s  flying  hours  were  not
authorized to be on the RSB reviewed by the FY93 RIF board.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states that since the AAM was for a period prior  to  the  FY93  RIF
board and given the very lengthy delay in the  publication  of  the  orders,
its inclusion is  proper.   Further,  the  AFCM  is  as  documented  as  the
applicant can provide.  The  personnel  system’s  failure  to  validate  the
decoration should not  be  a  basis  to  deny  the  requested  relief.   The
documentation on its face has all of the indicia of  authenticity  and  AFPC
has provided no rebuttal to the request.  Applicant should not be  penalized
for the  personnel  system’s  failure  to  properly  maintain  his  records.
Reliance on the RSB as a basis to deny entry of flying  hours  is  illogical
since a mistake was made when the form  was  prepared.   An  examination  of
other files submitted to the Special Board includes such entries, as  should
the applicant’s.

Counsel complete responses are 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  Although the period of the AAM  was  prior
to the convening of the RIF board, it was not  approved  and  awarded  until
after the RIF board convened.  After reviewing the processing  time  of  the
AFCM and the contested AAM, we note that although the AFCM was for a  period
after the AAM, the AFCM was approved before the AAM.   Moreover,  since  the
applicant was competing for an opportunity to be  retained  on  active  duty
and the award  was  for  sustained  meritorious  achievement  prior  to  the
convening date of the RIF board, we believe it should be a matter of  record
as  an  exception  to  policy.   Therefore,  we  recommend  his  records  be
corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice regarding  the  remainder  of  his  request.
Although a copy of a citation to  accompany  award  of  the  AFCM  has  been
provided, in the absence of a copy of the special orders awarding  applicant
the AFCM, we find no basis  to  correct  his  records  to  indicate  he  was
awarded the AFCM.  Should counsel provide  such  evidence,  he  may  request
reconsideration of this request at that time.  Further,  only  flying  hours
for rated aircrew members were reflected on the RSB  reviewed  by  the  FY93
RIF board.  Although counsel contends a mistake was made when the  form  was
prepared, applicant’s flying hours were not authorized to be on the RSB  and
he has been treated no differently that other  nonrated  officers  who  were
similarly situated.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend  favorable  consideration  of  this
portion of the application.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Aerial Achievement Medal  awarded
for the period 9 August 1990 to 29 November 1990, was approved  on  16  July
1992, rather than 26 August 1992, and the award was  accepted  for  file  in
his Officer Selection Record on 17 July 1992.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2004-02881
in Executive Session on 20 September 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
                       Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 13 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Emails, Counsel, dated 15 Sep 04.





                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-02881




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Aerial
Achievement Medal awarded for the period 9 August 1990 to 29 November 1990,
was approved on 16 July 1992, rather than 26 August 1992, and the award was
accepted for file in his Officer Selection Record on 17 July 1992.








JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency