Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02075
Original file (BC-2006-02075.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02075
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  14 JANUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Outstanding  Unit  Award  with  three  Oak  Leaf  Clusters
(AFOUA 3OLC) and any other awards he may be entitled.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His unit was awarded the AFOUA for the period 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2005.

In support of his request, applicant  provides  an  excerpt  from  his  unit
newspaper and copies of his Senior  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  for  the
periods ending 27 May 2004 and 27 May 2005.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 January 2006, the applicant was relieved  from  active  duty  and  was
retired in the grade of master sergeant  (E-7)  effective  1 February  2006.
Applicant was credited with 21 years 7 months and 16 days  of  total  active
duty service for basic pay and 21 years, 1 month and 22 days active  service
for retirement.

On 6 September 2006, Headquarters Air  Force  Personnel  Center  issued  the
applicant a DD Form 215, reflecting the Meritorious Service Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends  denial.   DPPPR  advises  the  applicant's  unit  did
receive the AFOUA; however, the award was revoked several  months  after  it
was approved, which makes the applicant
ineligible for the award.  The AFPC/DPPPR complete evaluation is at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant on  8 September
2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,  this  office
has not received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  We have reviewed  the  available  evidence
pertaining to the applicant’s assertions relating to  his  request  for  the
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, and we are not  persuaded  that  favorable
consideration of the applicant’s request is  appropriate.   His  contentions
in this regard are duly noted;  however,  in  our  opinion,  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed these  contentions
and we are in agreement with its recommendation.  In view of the  above,  we
find no basis to warrant favorable consideration of this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-02075
in Executive Session on 24 October 2006, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02075 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jul 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 14 Jul 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 06.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01841

    Original file (BC-2006-01841.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01841 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 19 DECEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM), Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor (AFOUA w/V), Vietnam Service Medal with One Silver Bronze Star and Three Bronze Service...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03131

    Original file (BC-2005-03131.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is entitled to the Combat Readiness Medal for his service in the Vietnam War. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, along with the applicant’s submission, the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopts its rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02309

    Original file (BC-2006-02309.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial for award of the AFAM w/1OLC. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, along with the applicant’s submission, the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopts its rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The Board notes...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03487

    Original file (BC-2006-03487.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03487 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 18 MAY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be issued the Air Force Overseas Ribbon-Short Tour (AFOR-ST), Air Force Longevity Service Award Ribbon (AFLSA), Air Force Basic Maintenance Badge, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03520

    Original file (BC-2005-03520.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was captured that same day and remained in POW status until 7 May 1945. DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPFC has verified his status as a WWII POW and has requested his record be corrected to reflect such. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02465

    Original file (BC-2004-02465.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-02202

    Original file (BC-2006-02202.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records should be corrected to show he was awarded the AFOUA. However, while the information he obtained from the internet appears to indicate his unit was awarded the AFOUA, this cannot be confirmed through...

  • 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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03764

    Original file (BC-2005-03764.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPPR states that in accordance with DoD 1348.33-Manual, Chapter 4, “the JMUA, awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense, is intended to recognize joint units and activities for meritorious achievement or service, superior to that which is normally, expected.” After consultation with the Joint Staff and researching DOD 1348.33-M Appendix C, DoD Activities Awarded the JMUA; and the Air Force Unit Awards Database their office located 2 awards of the JMUA to AFELM NATO AWACS E-3A for the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03947

    Original file (BC-2006-03947.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He believes he should be awarded the RVNGC w/P for serving with the 377TH Combat Support Group in Vietnam. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a copy of special order AB-1858 that was submitted with his original request. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, the Board is not persuaded his records should be corrected to show he was awarded the...