Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03433
Original file (BC-2004-03433.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03433
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 21 July 1996, his squadron commander intended to recommend him  for
award of the AFAM.   While inventorying old files, he came across  the
AF Form 642, Air Force Achievement Medal Justification, and  feels  it
was accidentally lost or misplaced over the years.  He has spoken with
Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) and  Air  Force  Personnel  Center
(AFPC) and no one seems to be able to help him with the award  of  the
AFAM.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and copies of the AF Form 642,  a  letter  of  appreciation,
technical training school graduate and  Honor  graduate  certificates,
and seven direct knowledge statements from coworkers at the time.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former member of the Pennsylvania Air National  Guard
(PAANG) is currently on the Reserve Retired List awaiting pay  at  age
60.  He began his military career on 13 April 1978  as  a  Traditional
Guardsman and eventually attained the grade of technical sergeant.  On
28 April 1995, he was  an  honor  graduate  of  the  Vehicle  Operator
Apprentice Course.  On 21 July 1996, his squadron commander filled out
an AF Form 642 for the purpose of awarding the applicant the AFAM  for
the period 7 April 1995  to  28 April  1995,  his  technical  training
school dates.  On 25 June 2002 he reached  20  satisfactory  years  of
service and was transferred  to  the  Reserve  Retired  List  awaiting
retired pay at age 60.
_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC recommends  denial.   DPFOC  contends  although  it  appears
supervisory  officials  for  the  applicant  may  have   submitted   a
recommendation for award for the  AFAM  during  his  military  tenure,
there is no  available  documentation  to  show  the  award  was  ever
approved/awarded by the appropriate  authority  as  indicated  in  Air
Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and  Decorations
Program.  Further, DPFOC states AFI 36-2803 requires the award  to  be
submitted within two years of the  event  or  achievement.   Applicant
became ineligible for the AFAM for the particular  achievement  on  27
April 1997.  However, DPFOC contacted the PAANG State Headquarters and
was informed the applicant may submit his recommendation to the  PAANG
for award of the Pennsylvania Commendation Medal for  this  particular
award period.

DPFOC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends the signed AF Form 642 was  never  approved/awarded
due to the unfortunate circumstance that it was  not  submitted  in  a
timely manner.  He contends the AF Form 642 was lost or  misplaced  in
his home unit  due  to  various  office  renovations  and  Operational
Readiness exercises and inspections.  He states he has provided  seven
signed direct knowledge statements in support of his  contention.   He
hopes his request will be approved and he will be awarded the AFAM.

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
including his submission of an AF Form  642  and  his  belief  it  was
originally  misplaced;  however,  we  agree  with  the   opinion   and
recommendation  of  the  Air  National   Guard   office   of   primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.
The ANG notes the PAANG  at  that  time  routinely  awarded  technical
training school honor graduates  with  the  Pennsylvania  Commendation
Medal and would have returned  the  AF  Form  642  to  the  unit  with
recommendation that the state award was justified in lieu of the AFAM.
 We would encourage the applicant to apply to the PAANG for  award  of
the Pennsylvania Commendation Medal.  Therefore,  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-03433 in Executive  Session  on  27  September  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 27 Jul 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Aug 05.



                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00245

    Original file (BC-2010-00245.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00245 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) on 5 Apr 07 for outstanding achievement on 7 Aug 02. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01036

    Original file (BC-2006-01036.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01036 INDEX CODE: 131.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) third oak leaf cluster (3OLC), awarded for the period 6 July 2003 through 7 August 2003, be included in his promotion cycle 04E6 selection process to technical sergeant. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01480

    Original file (BC-2005-01480.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01480 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: Mr. Ryan XXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 SEP 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) First Oak Leaf Cluster (1/OLC) be reinstated and he be provided supplemental...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02189

    Original file (BC-2004-02189.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02189 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility be changed from “Ineligible” to “Eligible.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He moved to Texas for employment reasons and concurrently transferred from...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9902960

    Original file (9902960.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-02960 INDEX CODE: 131.09, 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be advanced to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for retirement and awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and an Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). No documentary evidence has been presented to substantiate...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03103

    Original file (BC-2004-03103.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He contends the Excellent rating and his eventual non retention for reenlistment in the FLANG were both forms of reprisal because he had filed a Military Equal Opportunity complaint against his supervisor. DPFOC states the rating of Excellent did not seem inappropriate and since it was not written using derogatory terms it should not be considered a referral EPR as indicated by the applicant. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-04071

    Original file (BC-2002-04071.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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),...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03515

    Original file (BC-2004-03515.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He enlisted in the Florida Air National Guard (FLANG) while a senior in high school. DPFOC contends ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, states airmen who graduate from BMTS may be promoted to A1C if their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) is included on the Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS) list. DPFOC’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02677

    Original file (BC-2005-02677.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02677 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 FEB 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), the Air Reserves Forces Meritorious Service Medal (ARFMSM), the Air Force Good Conduct Medal...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03580

    Original file (BC-2004-03580.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, DPFOC specifically recommends denial of his request to reenlist, to be restored to the grade of TSgt, consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt), and his request for a discharge certificate. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion of command retribution denying him reenlistment, in and by itself, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air...