RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02065
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 AUG 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he was awarded  the  Legion  of  Merit
(LOM), rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth  Oak  Leaf  Cluster
(MSM, 4OLC), for the period 11 July 2000 to 8 July 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded the MSM 4OLC, rather than  the  LOM,  due  to  a  personality
conflict with his wing commander.

In support of his request, the applicant  submits  his  personal  statement,
the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 5 June 2001 and 5 June  2002,
the MSM 4 OLC certificate/citation,  the  LOM  narrative  recommendation,  a
proposed LOM citation, and his biography.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air  Force  on  1 April  1980,
and was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel.  On  19  June  2002,
he was awarded the MSM 4OLC for meritorious service  during  the  period  11
July 2000 to 8  July  2002,  as  Commander,  XXXXX.   He  was  selected  for
promotion to the grade of  brigadier  general  by  the  Calendar  Year  2005
(CY05) Brigadier General Selection Board.  His record reflects award of  the
Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, MSM 4OLC, Joint  Service
Commendation  Medal,  Air  Force  Commendation   Medal   4OLC,   Air   Force
Achievement Medal and Joint Meritorious Unit Award with 2OLCs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Director, SAFPC recommends the application  be  denied  and  states,  in
part, that at the time of the award in July 2003,  it  was  common  practice
for the Air Force Decorations Board to approve nominations for the award  of
the LOM to senior officers “graduating” from  group  command  billets,  when
the officer had served in this position for 18 months or more, and  provided
performance during that period  of  service  otherwise  warranted  favorable
consideration.  At that time, the Air Force Decorations Board was  the  sole
approval authority for LOMs under these conditions and  considered  hundreds
of nominations annually.  Since nominations for graduating group  commanders
were submitted by their respective wing commanders, and  endorsed  by  major
command commanders or vice commanders, it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  the
chain of command would have considered the  applicant’s  performance  worthy
of the award, else they would not have submitted/endorsed the nomination.

The  primary  source  documents  of  the  applicant’s  performance  seem  to
indicate his level of performance did rise  to  a  level  equivalent  to  or
exceeding  other  similarly  assigned  officers.   The  final  line  in  the
additional rater comments of the OPR  closing  5  June  2002  indicates  the
applicant had already been selected to become the  Commander,  XXXXX,  prior
to the close-out date of that report.  Consequently, the MSM he received  in
July 2002 had no bearing on his selection for this follow-on assignment.

Under some circumstances, receipt of an MSM upon completion of a tour  as  a
group commander, when nearly all other similarly  assigned  commanders  were
awarded LOMs, would potentially  be  of  some  concern  to  promotion  board
members and could also impact follow-on assignment actions.  However, it  is
apparent through the  applicant’s  subsequent  selection  for  promotion  to
brigadier general, the promotion board members relied upon  his  performance
as a wing commander and the source documents, i.e., OPRs,  of  his  previous
performance in making their recommendation for  promotion,  rather  than  be
negatively swayed by the award of the MSM.  In other  words,  the  award  of
the MSM, vice the LOM, did  not  hinder  his  subsequent  promotion.   Under
these circumstances, it is difficult to support a finding that an  error  or
injustice has occurred, which would warrant favorable consideration  of  the
application.  The applicant’s wing  commander  did  not  at  the  time,  and
apparently still does not endorse him for the higher  award.   Further,  the
applicant did not provide any higher chain of command support,  particularly
from the Commander, XXXXX, who was the same additional  rater  who  endorsed
both of his OPRs during this period of service that  could  help  justify  a
finding to  overturn  his  wing  commander’s  decision  to  award  the  MSM.
Moreover, the applicant  alleges  mitigating  instances  and  a  personality
conflict between himself and his wing commander as the reasons  he  was  not
nominated for the LOM, but he did not provide any  character  statements  to
substantiate that a personality conflict existed.

The Director, SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The SAFPC Decoration Board database  for  this  specific  timeframe  reveals
that those similarly assigned officers were in large part  awarded  LOMs  at
the end of their group  commander  tours.   Those  are  the  same  similarly
assigned officers that he competed against  and  bested  for  selection  for
wing commander, which were based largely on his accomplishments as  a  group
commander.

His sole intent is to get his case reviewed by an  impartial  body  and  set
the record straight.  He wants nothing more  than  to  have  his  documented
performance measured against the stringent LOM approval criteria  in  effect
at the time.  He is confident his performance merits LOM  consideration  and
approval.

He is not aware of any authority vested in a wing commander  to  arbitrarily
bend or change policy guidance to suit their own purpose.   The  CORONA  LOM
guidance in effect at the time was very specific  in  its  direction.   That
guidance, coupled with his documented accomplishments, clearly indicates  an
impartial consideration for an end-of-tour LOM is warranted.

He did not provide  supporting  documentation  from  his  chain  of  command
because he chose to keep the conflict with the wing  commander  between  the
two of them.  Only in the privacy of the  wing  commander’s  office  did  he
voice his concerns.

Prior to resubmission of his application to the  Board,  he  contacted  both
his prior wing commander  and  the  prior  XXX/CC  to  advise  them  of  his
intention.  His prior wing commander became visibly agitated that  he  would
question his decision.  Up until the time he went to see the  prior  XXX/CC,
this issue was kept between his  prior  wing  commander  and  himself.   The
XXX/CC empathized with him, sharing the fact that he too had been  similarly
victimized in his career.

He  surmises  the  former  wing  commander’s  reasons  were  personal   vice
professional because of the differences between them.   Based  on  his  more
recent reaction to a  request  for  support  for  an  upgrade  of  the  MSM,
personal differences continue to be  the  most  rationale  reason.   Another
possible reason is administrative.  At  the  time,  it  was  XXX  policy  to
submit  LOM  recommendations  90  days  prior  to  the  requested  date   of
presentation.  If this suspense was not met, XXX policy  required  a  letter
from the wing commander to the vice commander explaining why the  submission
was late.

The 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of  record  and  noting  the  applicant’s  complete  submission,  a
majority of the Board is convinced the preponderance of  evidence  presented
demonstrates  the  applicant’s  performance  during  the  contested   period
warrants awarding the LOM.  The Director, SAFPC has  indicated  that  during
the  period  in  question,  it  was  common  practice  for  the  Air   Force
Decorations  Board  to  approve   LOM   nominations   to   senior   officers
“graduating” from group command billets when the officer had served in  this
position for 18 months or more, and provided performance during that  period
otherwise warranted favorable consideration.  While a majority of the  Board
is somewhat troubled  by  the  absence  of  support  from  the  XXX/CC,  the
comments of the Director, SAFPC, clearly indicate that during the period  in
question the applicant’s level of performance rose  to  a  level  equivalent
to, or exceeding, other similarly assigned  officers.   However,  since  the
applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general,  the
Director, SAFPC, ultimately opines, in essence, that since  there  has  been
“no harm there is no foul,” and recommends the  application  be  denied.   A
majority of the Board  disagrees,  noting  the  applicant  has  a  right  to
receive equitable treatment.  The Board’s majority also  cannot  rationalize
how the applicant can be selected for promotion to  brigadier  general  over
the numerous similarly assigned officers who were awarded  the  LOM  and  be
the only XXX support group commander selected for a wing  commander  billet,
yet his wing commander determined his level of performance did  not  warrant
awarding the LOM.  Such a conclusion, in our view, simply flies in the  face
of reason and shocks our sense of justice.  In view of this, a  majority  of
the Board is convinced that the MSM 4 OLC should be  upgraded  to  the  LOM.
Further, we find that, while his receipt of an MSM vice  LOM  may  not  have
affected his ability to be promoted to the grade of  brigadier  general  and
obtain a wing commander billet, there is  no  guarantee  that  it  will  not
serve to deprive him of a competitive  record  for  promotion  to  a  higher
grade and impede  his  consideration  for  future  assignments.   Therefore,
considering all of the circumstances collectively, the  majority  recommends
the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.



4.    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 issue(s) 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 he was awarded the Legion of  Merit,
rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster, for  the
period 11 July 2000 to 8 July 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2004-02065
in Executive Session on 9 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Leloy W. Cottrell, Member
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

By majority vote, the Board voted to correct the  records,  as  recommended.
Mr. Parker voted to deny applicant's request but does not wish to  submit  a
Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 3 Apr 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Apr 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 May 06.




      CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
      Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-02065



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, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of
Merit, rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster,
for the period 11 July 2000 to 8 July 2002.







JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency