RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02694
            INDEX NUMBER:  107.00; 111.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 Feb 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In two separate DD Form 149s, applicant makes the following requests:

        a.  His DD Form 214 be corrected to  show  his  award  of  the
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) with “V” device.

        b.  His DD Form 214 be corrected to  show  his  award  of  the
Master Parachutist Badge, Master Military Freefall  Parachutist  Badge
and Chief Aircrew Member Badge.

        c.  Reconsideration of the Board’s 22 Apr 97 decision to  deny
his request to void the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  on
him for the period 17 Sep 93 to 2 Aug 94.

        d.  He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM),  Second
Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), for the period 30 Sep 94 to 30 Sep 96.

        e.  He be awarded  the  Aerial  Achievement  Medal  (AAM)  for
missions flown between 14 Dec 94 and 22 Nov 95.

        f.  He be given supplemental promotion  consideration  to  the
grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) beginning with cycle 95E8.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The omission of the qualifications badges  on  his  DD  Form  214  has
caused confusion with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) because
the other services include the badges on the DD Form 214 while the Air
Force seems to exclude them.

In support of his request for  award  of  the  MSM  (2OLC),  applicant
provides a letter of support from an officer  who  was  his  immediate
supervisor during  the  timeframe  in  question  indicating  they  had
submitted  the  decoration  recommendation  on   the   applicant   for
presentation at his retirement ceremony.  They also attach a  copy  of
the proposed citation and an unsigned Décor 6.

In support of his request for award of the AAM, applicant  provides  a
letter of support from an officer who served as the operation  officer
for the applicant’s assigned unit during the  timeframe  in  question.
The officer states he submitted the recommendation for  the  applicant
to receive the award.  The applicant also attaches an unsigned copy of
a mission information-justification sheet for the AAM.

He is distraught concerning how  accusations  of  improprieties,  poor
performance, bad conduct and negligence  can  exist  without  accusers
giving any evidence or documentation to back up their claims.

The Air Force IG refuses to acknowledge the possibility commanders and
supervisors made statements lacking truthfulness after he  raised  the
issue and will not review his complaints further.  He asks  the  Board
not to tie itself to the judgments and conclusions made by the IG  and
that  the  Board  make  an  effort  to  reach  its   own   independent
conclusions.

Only two documents make his presumed bad conduct, poor  behavior,  and
negligent performance a matter of official record, (1) the  19 Aug  95
IG Summary Report of Inquiry (SROI) pertaining  to  the  complaint  he
made concerning unfair treatment that resulted in an  unjust  EPR  and
(2) the 17 Apr 97 response by AFPC/MSH to a SAF/IGQ inquiry pertaining
to the status of the MSM and AAM awarded to him during his  retirement
ceremony.  Both documents fail to  reveal  any  evidence  relevant  to
confirming instances, frequency, and  certainty  of  his  conduct  and
performance.

Applicant provides a 29-page statement to provide additional  evidence
and information in support of  his  requests  for  award  of  the  MSM
(2OLC), AAM, and removal of the EPR closing 2 Aug 94 from his records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 10  Jul  73  and
retired effective  1  Oct  96.   His  records  reflect  the  following
decorations:

        a.  Distinguished Flying Cross

        b.  Meritorious Service Medal with one oak leaf cluster

        c.  Air Medal

        d.  Air Force Commendation Medal with five oak leaf clusters

A resume of the applicant’s last ten EPRs follows:

        Closeout Date                   Overall Rating

         *22 Nov 87                          9
         *22 Nov 88                          9
        **22 Nov 89                          4
          22 Nov 90                          5
          11 Aug 91                          5
          11 Aug 92                          5
          12 Mar 93                          5
          16 Sep 93                          5
         #02 Aug 94                          3
          02 Aug 95                          4

* Ratings under the Airman Performance Report (APR) system  where  “9”
was highest possible rating.

** Start of ratings under new Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) system
where “5” is the highest rating.

# Contested EPR

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/XOOT (XOOT)  confirmed  the  applicant’s  entitlement  to  the
Master Parachutist, Master Military Freefall  Parachutist,  and  Chief
Aircrew Member badges and recommends his DD Form 214 be amended to  so
reflect.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for  award  of
the Meritorious Service Medal (2OLC)  and  Aerial  Achievement  Medal.
The applicant is not eligible for award of the MSM (2OLC) since  there
is no proof of award or recommendation  for  the  award.   He  is  not
eligible for award of the AAM.  Approval of this award is delegated to
wing commanders.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant states the
evaluations failed to  address  all  of  his  issues.   He  notes  the
evaluations did not address his request to amend his DD  Form  214  to
show authorized wear of the “V” device on  his  awarded  Distinguished
Flying Cross.

Applicant states that regarding his request for award of the  MSM  and
AAM,  the  evaluations  ignore  that  the  Air  Force  IG  disregarded
misrepresentation of facts and false  statements  about  his  conduct,
behavior, and performance during his assignment  to  the  66th  Rescue
Squadron.  The inquiry officials put too much reliance on  his  former
commander and others in his chain of command making  full  and  honest
disclosure to them.  The applicant makes the following assertions:

        a.  He was presented the medals at his retirement ceremony.

        b.  Inquiries he made to his former  squadron  and  wing  were
never answered.

        c.  The lack of  response  to  his  inquiries  concerning  the
medals resulted in an Air Force IG request for action to determine the
status of the awards.

        d.  The IG request resulted  in  a  defamation  response  that
wrongfully stated  as  truth  he  had  purposely  and  knowingly  been
negligent in his duties.  Specific comments describe his negligence as
being severe enough to impair the unit from  accomplishing  its  daily
mission.  He notes that the lack of disciplinary  action  or  official
counseling regarding this assertion shows the exaggeration and lack of
truthfulness of his former commander’s statements.

        e.  His former commander’s defamatory statements  resulted  in
his making an Air Force IG complaint  alleging  his  former  commander
made false statements and that his record  did  not  contain  anything
showing his conduct, performance or behavior were less than desirable.

        f.  The Air Force IG took no action into  his  complaint.   He
believes  the  IG  failed  to  comply  with  the  duty  of  exercising
reasonable care to determine if any  causation  supported  his  former
commander’s untruthful statement.

        g.  His EPRs do not indicate or infer the  bad  conduct,  poor
performance,   and   undesirable   behavior   his   former   commander
untruthfully alleges.

         h.  His  immediate  supervisors  provide  letters  they   had
submitted him for the awards and that they have no  knowledge  of  any
action, act, or  behavior  that  would  result  in  the  medals  being
disapproved.

The applicant provides the following summarized reasons why the  Board
should reconsider their earlier decision not to remove  the  contested
EPR from his record:

        a.  His application provides  reasonable  cause  the  EPR  was
written  with  malice  with  the  intent   to   end   further   career
opportunities.

        b.  His application identifies motivations  of  his  superiors
that caused their unconscionable and perhaps conspired undue influence
that resulted in his being in an unfair and hostile place of work.

        c.  His record shows he sustained exceptional performance  and
had no behavior problems prior to being transferred under  the  direct
supervision of those who made it clear they were going to get  rid  of
him one way or the other.

        d.  The official record shows he tried  to  get  fair  working
conditions, to include being given work he was capable of  doing,  but
was never delegated to him.

         e.  His  complaint  to  the  Air  Force  IG  regarding  undue
influence at Headquarters Air Combat Command  (ACC)  resulted  in  his
permanent change of station (PCS) to a unit that had  no  vacancy  for
his grade and skill level while vacancies at other units were ignored.

        f.  The Air Force IG did not conduct an inquiry  of  discovery
and consequently certain things were arbitrarily accepted as true  and
the documents disputing what was accepted as true were never sought.

        g.  The IG inquiry officers failed to make  reasonable  effort
to address and consider all facts relevant to his case.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

The applicant provided a second response to the Air Force evaluations,
which address the  same  issues  and  make  the  same  contentions  as
indicated above.

The complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Board notified the applicant that although he was  authorized  the
“V” device on his Distinguished Flying Cross, current Air Force policy
was not to amend the DD Form 214 for all awards made between 18 Sep 47
and 2 Jun 04 (Misc Info).  The applicant was asked if  he  was  asking
for his DD Form 214 to be amended as an “exception to policy.”

The applicant was also asked to provide  copies  of  the            13
attachments he referred to in his application, which were not  clearly
identified with his original submission.

The AFBCMR Letter is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT”S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

In response to the Board’s request, the  applicant  indicated  he  was
providing two CDs with all of the documents requested.

Applicant indicates he is not aware of any published policy that would
prevent his DD Form 214 being amended to indicate his authorization to
wear the “V” device on his DFC.  While he considers it  reasonable  to
deny amending his DD Form 214 solely to  authorize  wear  of  the  “V”
device, he is requesting this action as part of the correction of  his
DD Form 214 that might be necessitated  by  favorable  action  on  his
other requests.

The applicant comments on the Board’s previous  consideration  of  his
request to void the EPR rendered on him closing 2 Aug  94  and  opines
the Board did not consider the IG case file and made no mention of his
non-concur rebuttal to the IG and his request for further inquiry.  He
states the quality of the evidence previously considered by the  Board
was inaccurate and incomplete.  He states that Board members ought  to
consider the evidence  supplementing  his  “current  application  with
concern to the quality of the assertions and the aspect of reality his
statements are intended to express … .”

The  applicant  states  the   evidence   supplementing   his   current
application is more complete than the Air  Force  IG  was  willing  to
discover and include in its case file.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit I.

The applicant sent an e-mail to the  Director,  Review  Boards  Agency
regarding the attachments he provided the Board  on  CDs  and  whether
they were acceptable in this format (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

BOARD’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT:

In a letter dated 17 Dec 04, the applicant was advised  that  none  of
the documents he submitted with his application  had  been  misplaced,
but  the  Board  was  having  problems  correlating   the   referenced
attachments to his application.  The  applicant  was  advised  of  the
preferable format for submitting documentation to the Board and  given
30 days to respond.

The letter is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO BOARD:

The applicant indicates his understanding of the issues the Board  has
with his submission.  He states he has organized his case the best  he
could.  He notes the strength  of  his  application  is  the  lack  of
documentary evidence the IG has to support the assertion they made  in
the Summary of Inquiry Findings and other responses to his  complaints
and his rebuttals indicating nonconcurrence.  The  applicant  provides
his view of the errors and shortcomings of the IG Summary of Findings.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

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 regarding the following requests:

        a.  Reconsideration of the Board’s 22 Apr 97 decision  to  deny
his request to void the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  rendered  on
him for the period 17 Sep 93 to 2 Aug 94.

        b.  He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal  (MSM),  Second
Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), for the period 30 Sep 94 to 30 Sep 96.

        c.  He be  awarded  the  Aerial  Achievement  Medal  (AAM)  for
missions flown between 14 Dec 94 and 22 Nov 95.

        d.  He be given supplemental  promotion  consideration  to  the
grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) beginning with cycle 95E8.

Regarding the contested EPR, the applicant makes essentially  the  same
arguments previously considered by  the  Board.   As  in  his  previous
appeal the applicant has not  provided  evidence  that  adequately  and
specifically addresses why the EPR as written is  incorrect.   Although
he has submitted a voluminous amount of material, he  has  not  clearly
shown the nexus between the material and  the  error  or  injustice  he
claims to have suffered.  Much of his argument centers around  what  he
considers an  ineffective  investigation  conducted  by  the  Inspector
General in his case.  However, he has not provided sufficient  evidence
to support his allegations.  Since we do not find a sufficient basis to
void  the  EPR,  supplemental  promotion  consideration  is  also   not
warranted.  The  applicant  has  provided  a  letter  from  his  former
supervisor stating he  recommended  the  applicant  for  award  of  the
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) (2OLC).  The letter  does  not  provide
any insight into why the medal was not approved or why it was presented
to the applicant without being approved.  The former supervisor  states
he was surprised the medal was not on the applicant’s DD Form  214  (we
read this to  mean  approved).   It  is  our  view  that  normally  the
recommending official on a decoration has the responsibility to  follow
it through the process to the  final  decision.   There  are  too  many
unanswered questions for us to recommend granting the applicant the MSM
(2OLC).  This is especially so in view of the 17 Apr 97 letter  to  the
applicant from AFPC/MSH that confirms his immediate commander  did  not
believe it appropriate  to  recommend  the  applicant  for  the  award.
Similarly, the same circumstances appear to apply  to  the  applicant’s
request for the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM).  His former  Operations
officer provides a statement he recommended the applicant for the  AAM.
However,  the  statement  does  not  provide  any  further  information
regarding what happened to the recommendation.  Additionally, the  copy
of the recommendation form provided by the applicant does  not  contain
the  Operations  officer  signature.   In  the  absence  of  sufficient
evidence to the contrary, we do not find a basis to recommend  approval
of this portion of the applicant’s requested relief.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s  requests  to
correct his DD Form 214 to reflect  award  of  the  Master  Parachutist
Badge, Master Military Freefall Parachutist  Badge  and  Chief  Aircrew
Member Badge.  We accept the determination  and  recommendation  of  HQ
USAF/XOOT that the applicant was previously awarded  these  badges  and
that his DD Form be updated to  so  reflect.   We  also  recommend  the
applicant’s DD Form  214  be  updated  to  reflect  his  award  of  the
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) with “V” device.  While  we  recognize
that Air Force policy is to only update the DD Form 214 for those  DFCs
awarded on or after 3 Jun 04, since the applicant’s DD  Form  214  will
already require updating based on the badges listed above,  we  believe
it appropriate  in  this  case  to  include  the  DFC.   Therefore,  we
recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to  show  that  his  DD  Form  214,
“Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,” be  amended  in
Block 13, “Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign  Ribbons
Awarded or Authorized” as follows:

        a.  Add  the  “V”  device  designation  to  his  award  of  the
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

        b.  Reflect his award of the Master Parachutist  Badge,  Master
Military Freefall Parachutist Badge and Chief Aircrew Member Badge.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2004-
02694 in Executive Session on 31 March 2005, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 04, w/atchs; DD
                 Form 149, dated 20 Aug 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 24 Sep 04.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, undated.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Sep 04.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 04.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Oct 04.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Nov 04.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Nov 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit J.  E-mail Copy, Applicant, dated 2 Dec 04.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Dec 04.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Dec 04.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2004-02694


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 XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that  his  DD  Form
214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active  Duty,”  be,  and
hereby is, amended in Block 13, “Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations
and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized” as follows:

            a.  Add the “V” device designation  to  his  award  of  the
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

            b.  Reflect his award  of  the  Master  Parachutist  Badge,
Master Military Freefall Parachutist Badge  and  Chief  Aircrew  Member
Badge.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency