RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00133
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded two meritorious service medals (MSMs); one  via  upgrade
of an Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) awarded  for  the  period  3
July 1998 to 25 November 2002, and the second for service  during  the
period 26 November 2002 to 21 October 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It was standard practice in  the  E-3  Airborne  Warning  and  Control
System (AWACS) to award majors an MSM after completion of a tour.   He
did not receive an MSM and he argues that Air Force Instruction  (AFI)
36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program,  prohibits  the
award of a specific decoration based upon an individual’s  grade,  but
on the level of responsibility and  the  manner  of  performance.   He
states by the time the MSM  package  was  forwarded  through  channels
there was no one left in the unit  with  firsthand  knowledge  of  his
performance, as his commander  had  recently  moved  out  of  country.
Further, his package was allowed to go forward unchecked.

He feels he should also be awarded an MSM for  the  period  26 October
2002 to 21 October 2005, when he was stationed in Alaska.   He  states
his commander told him when he left Alaska to go back to Oklahoma that
he would receive an MSM based on the level of work he had accomplished
while stationed there.  Just  prior  to  leaving,  the  applicant  was
informed he wasn’t going to get a medal at all.  He feels he has  seen
others awarded the MSM  for  equal  or  lesser  work.   He  feels  his
command’s denial of any medal to be capricious and unjust.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, and several attachments including  copies  of  his  Officer
Performance Reports (OPR’s).

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began his military career on 1 December 1983.  He eventually
became a pilot and was progressively promoted to the  grade  of  major
with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 July 2002.  He has  over  18  years  of
service that includes 14 years as an officer.  He is currently serving
in the grade of major as  the  Assistant  Director  of  Operations  at
Tinker AFB, OK.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR  notes  the  MSM  is  awarded  to
members who distinguished themselves by either outstanding achievement
or meritorious service to the United States.  There is no evidence  in
his military personnel record that supports he was recommended for  or
awarded any MSMs.  DPPPR notes an email from  the  applicant’s  former
squadron commander stated that nothing has changed in  regard  to  the
AFCM versus the MSM and that the applicant  was  seen  as  a  co-pilot
until a couple of months before he pinned on  captain.   Additionally,
the applicant underwent a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) just  five
months after pinning on major.  Therefore the  vast  majority  of  the
applicant’s work at Tinker AFB, OK, was commensurate with a  Captain’s
work and does not merit an  MSM.   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.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states the advisory only reiterates the problem that has led
to his  filing  of  an  AFBCMR  request.   He  states  the  advisory’s
statement that he should not get an MSM because he was a co-pilot  and
not a major long enough is wrong.  The statement “…seen as a  co-pilot
until a couple of months before he pinned  on  captain,”  should  read
“before he pinned on major.”  Being a co-pilot for part of a tour does
not mean one would have less responsibility  or  should  be  any  less
likely to get an MSM.  He states he was not  only  a  co-pilot  but  a
pilot and flight commander with more responsibility than  just  flying
the jet.  Regardless, using his rank or position  has  nothing  to  do
with meritorious service and AFI 36-2803 prohibits  the  use  of  such
when rating award  of  the  MSM.   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).   He  is
aware of at least one airman who  received  two  LOAs  and  was  still
presented with an MSM.  He has commanded an aircraft in combat and  he
is aware of several majors at Tinker AFB, OK  who  received  MSMs  and
never went into combat.  During his  tour  in  Alaska,  he  flew  many
missions over the Bering Sea to watch Russian activities and while  on
alert was scrambled to fly the Alaskan NORAD  Region  and  Long  Range
Detection Team missions.  He also had  the  duty  of  being  Chief  of
Training in Alaska.  He hopes he has shown the Board a  clear  picture
of the inequity in this Alaskan MSM case and the injustice  of  adding
prerequisites to the instructions in AFI 36-2803 in the  Oklahoma  MSM
case.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  His contentions
are noted; however, we  do  not  find  his  uncorroborated  assertions
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe
that either commander acted inappropriately in deciding what  type  of
medal, indeed if any medal, was warranted  or  that  either  commander
abused their discretionary authority in rendering their decisions.  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 persuasive  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-
2006-00133 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 25 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 7 Feb 06
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Feb 06.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair