Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02465
Original file (BC-2004-02465.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02465
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), awarded  for  service  between
July 1999 and July 2001, be upgraded to  the  Air  Force  Commendation
Medal (AFCM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She resubmitted her application to the Wing Commander (WG/CC) at Moody
AFB and, after a lengthy  review  the  WG/CC’s  decision  was  to  not
upgrade her AFAM to an AFCM.  While she  respects  his  decision,  she
disagrees with it and contends he purposely used words in his response
to make it appear as though her performance during the period was only
slightly above average.  She states her Enlisted  Performance  Reports
(EPR’s) contain all the  factual  data  needed  to  make  an  informed
decision.   Her  supervisor  fought  for  the  upgrade  but  was  also
unsuccessful.

In support of her  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and copies of the letter from the Moody AFB WG/CC, copies of
her EPR’s, several letters  of  support,  her  award  certificate  and
order, and copies of her previous AFBCMR application.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

As part of a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) action from Moody  AFB,
GA to McGuire AFB, NJ, she was submitted for award  of  the  AFCM  for
meritorious service between the dates 21 July 1999  to  15 July  2001.
Her award was downgraded to the AFAM.  After her PCS to  McGuire  AFB,
she applied to the AFBCMR to have her medal upgraded.   She  was  told
until she appealed to the WG/CC at Moody AFB that she hadn’t exhausted
all available administrative remedies.  She appealed to the WG/CC  and
on 11 October 2005, the WG/CC upheld the downgrade.  She is  currently
serving in the grade of technical sergeant and has over  19  years  of
active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR cites  the  approval  authority’s
denial and base their denial on his comment.

DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
10 February 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  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-
2004-02465 in Executive Session on 28 March 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 30 Jan 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00370

    Original file (BC-2002-00370.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00370 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) awarded for the period 23 Mar 98 to 16 Jul 01, which was revoked, be reinstated. A completely new recommendation package would need to be submitted, with the inclusive dates of her tour at Moody...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02840

    Original file (BC-2006-02840.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The commander stated he contacted her former commander to determine the specifics of her decoration and fully supports supplemental promotion consideration. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends approval of the applicant’s request to have her initiation date of the AFCM coincide with her PCS in Aug 05 (Exhibit C). Therefore we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802041

    Original file (9802041.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01937

    Original file (BC-2007-01937.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01937 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 December 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Bronze Star Medal (BSM) awarded to him for service in Iraq for the period 10 August 2003 through 5 December 2003, which was subsequently revoked by 9th Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02326

    Original file (BC-2007-02326.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current Air Force promotion policy, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2, {sic – should be Rule 7} dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Although the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s near-miss for promotion, evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102546

    Original file (0102546.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that this decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 01E7 cycle because there is no tangible evidence the decoration was placed into official channels prior to the date selections for the 01E7 cycle were made. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00133

    Original file (BC-2006-00133.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regarding the second MSM, DPPPR agrees with the commander’s assessment that the applicant would not receive a medal at all upon leaving Alaska. DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. He contends his commander while stationed at Alaska literally had the MSM package completed when the applicant was presented with a Letter of Admonishment (LOA).

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900305

    Original file (9900305.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He also directed that the applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration with her corrected record. On 5 Dec 96, the Board recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Feb 91 be accepted for file in its proper sequence; that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Jun 91 be amended in Section I to show the period of the report as 19 Feb 91 through 18 Jun 91 and the reason for the report as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00566

    Original file (BC-2003-00566.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO stated that their research indicated the applicant was not medically retired from active duty, nor could his name be found on the retired file or the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) microfiche. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial of the applicant's request for award of the DFC and AFCM indicating that the applicant did not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201144

    Original file (0201144.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his request the applicant provided documentation from the awarding authority indicating that if the EPR had been a "5" at the time it was originally rendered, he would have awarded the applicant an AFCM and subsequently upgraded the medal. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to recommend supplemental consideration for these cycles. ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01144 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...