Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03429-2
Original file (BC-2004-03429-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03429
            INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 October 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Force Command Insignia.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was integrated into the Regular Air Force as a  second  lieutenant
on 12 November 1947 and served on continous active duty until his  voluntary
retirement effective 1 September 1972.

On 2 March 2005, the applicant's request to be  awarded  Air  Force  Command
Insignia was considered and denied by the Board. For an  accounting  of  the
facts and  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  request,  and,  the
rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit E.

On 21 April 2005, the applicant submitted  a  request  for  reconsideration.
To support his request, he provided a personal statement and  extracts  from
his military personnel records.  The applicant's complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPF recommends denial of applicant’s request and states, in  part  that
acting/interim commanders, vice and deputy  commanders  are  not  authorized
permanent wear of the insignia.  Additionally, commanders  are  required  to
serve the entire tenure of the command position (usually  two  years)  as  a
graduated commander in order to be awarded  the  insignia.   In  support  of
their recommendation, AFPC/DPF provides an AFPC/DPS  message  outlining  the
eligibility requirements for award and wear of the insignia.

The AFPC/DPF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

While he does not have access to all documents  pertinent  to  the  subject,
those available have led him to question whether commanders are required  to
usually serve two years.  Further, there is  no  indication  as  to  a  time
period for an individual to  have  have  filled  an  approved  wing  command
position.  In his case, he was ordered to command the xxxxx at xxxxx by  the
Commander, Air Force Systems Commander (AFSC).  He took command at xxxx  and
performed the duty of a wing commander until he was  transferred  to  a  new
position as center vice commander.  If it  is  possible  to  award  him  the
insignia he would appreciate it.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit J.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the additional evidence  provided
in support of his appeal, a majority of the Board  remains  unpersuaded  the
applicant’s should be awarded the  Air  Force  Command  Insignia.   In  this
respect, the Board’s majority notes  that  acting/interim  commanders,  vice
and  deputy  commanders  do  not  meet  the  eligibility  requirements   for
permanent  wear  of  the  insignia.   Furthermore,  the  office  of  primary
responsibility (OPR) indicates that commanders are  required  to  serve  the
entire tenure of the command position (usually two  years)  as  a  graduated
commander in order to be awarded the insignia.  In the applicant’s case,  he
was assigned as the Wing Commander, for a period of 31 days  (1  to  31 July
1970), as  evidence  by  the  AF  Form  1098s,  Personnel  Action  Requests,
submitted with his appeal.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  that  he
meets the eligibility requirements for award of the insignia, a majority  of
the Board does not believe he has met his burden of  establishing  that  his
records are in error or unjust.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board reconsidered this application  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member

By majority vote, the Board recommended  denial  of  the  application.   Mr.
Peterson voted to correct  the  records  but  does  not  wish  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 18 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Jan 06.
    Exhibit H.  Memo, AFPC/DPF, dated 23 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 06.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, 8 Apr 06.



                                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                                   Panel Chair







MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of XXXXXX, BC-2004-03429

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  The majority of the Board found that
applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00426

    Original file (BC-2005-00426.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00426 INDEX CODE: 126.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) he received on 3 Dec 04 be removed from his existing Unfavorable Information File (UIF). In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02065

    Original file (BC-2004-02065.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00487

    Original file (BC-2006-00487.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    To be awarded the BSM, a member while serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces of the United States on or after 7 December 1941, shall have distinguished himself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPF states AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel, outlines the wear of sister-Service badges, insignias and patches and does not authorize permanent wear of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01179

    Original file (BC-2006-01179.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They recommend the applicant’s DAFSC be corrected as requested. Although CSAF NOTAM 98-2 allows for early removal of the LOR, the applicant did not provide any documentation indicating his chain of command would have removed the LOR prior to the convening date of the CY05B Major CSB. After reviewing the complete evidence of record, we agree with the recommendations of AFPC/DPPPO regarding the applicant’s request for early removal of the LOR date 27 Jun 02 from his Officer Selection Record,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00497

    Original file (BC-2007-00497.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00497 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 AUG 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be declared void and removed from his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01622

    Original file (BC-2005-01622.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His request for separation was disapproved even though the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records (AFBCMR) rescinded his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)-incurred Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 18 October 2011 and the Record of Proceedings (AFBCMR Document Number BC-2004- 02126) stated that ACC/DOT would not hold him to his 10 June 2007 ADSC. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02843

    Original file (BC-2004-02843.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02843 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 121.00, 126.03, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Mar 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Throughout this entire process, his case was mismanaged and mishandled as evidenced by the fact his OPR, rebuttal, PIF, and proposed Article 15 action were lost...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03142

    Original file (BC-2005-03142.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, on 27 Aug 01, the squadron commander reported to the Wing IG he was considering removing the applicant as NCOIC of the Hydraulics shop because he was inciting his personnel over the manning issue and continuing to complain about it outside the rating chain. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends the LOR administered to the applicant on 25 Mar 02, the EPR rendered on him closing 19 Jul 02, and the AF Form 418 be voided and removed from his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01997

    Original file (BC-2009-01997.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 Jan 04, the applicant initiated an AF Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration , alleging reprisal and abuse of authority by his chain of command relative to his EPR and his request for extension of his (DEROS). On 20 Dec 05, the applicant was notified by Headquarters, Air Mobility Command Office of the Inspector General (HQ AMC/IG) of its findings regarding his allegations. SAF/IG reviewed the HQ AMC/IG report of investigation and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03943

    Original file (BC-2005-03943.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unable to take 30 days leave during FY 05 due to AEF deployment, TDYs, exercises and upgrade training. AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, Note below Para 10.9.7, states, in part, that member’s application must clearly establish that an error or injustice by the Air Force caused the member’s lost leave. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...