RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02263
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 JANUARY 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not recognized due to an oversight for his dedicated service
while assigned to the 910th Tactical Airlift Group (TAG), Youngstown
Municipal Airport, Vienna, Ohio.
In support of his request, the applicant provided copies of statements
from retired Brigadier General (BG) F. and Lt Col M.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 16 July 1960, the applicant accepted a commission into the Air
Force Reserves (AFRes) as a second lieutenant (2Lt).
The applicant’s records reflect he was awarded the Meritorious Service
Medal (MSM) and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA).
The applicant was honorably retired on 22 May 1997 in the grade of
lieutenant colonel (Lt Col). He served 36 years, 10 months, and 6
days of service for basic pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFRC/A1B recommends the requested relief be denied. HQ AFRC/A1B
states in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2803, Air
Force Awards and Decorations Program, Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.1 and
3.1.1. Initiating a Recommendation, states “submit recommendations as
soon as possible following the act, achievement, or service. Enter
each recommendation into official channels within two years and award
within three years of the act, achievement, or service performed.”
Regulatory guidance does not allow decorations to be processed after
the prescribed time frame.
HQ AFRC/A1B further states there were no records located indicating a
nomination package to award the applicant the AFCM was placed into
official channels for the period 1 July 1973 to 27 June 1982.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 15
September 2006, for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air
Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice. The
applicant requests he be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal for
the period the period 1 July 1973 to 27 June 1982. AFI 36-2803 states
a recommendation should be submitted as soon as possible following the
act, achievement, or service. Each recommendation must be entered
into official channels with two years and awarded within three years
of the act, achievement, or service performed. There is no
documentation in the applicant’s records indicating a nomination
package to award him the AFCM was placed into official channels during
that period. Although, the applicant submitted letters from his
former commander and fellow servicemember who support his contention
to be awarded the AFCM are duly noted; however, regulatory guidelines
do not allow decorations to be processed after the prescribed time
frame. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the Board finds no
compelling basis upon which to recommend the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2006-02263 in Executive Session on 25 October 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 11 Jul 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/A1B, 30 Sep 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 06.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04031
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1B recommends denial of his request for award of the MSM or AFCM. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 March 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00866
In accordance with AFI 36-2803, recommendations for the AFCM and AFAM must be submitted as soon as possible following the act, achievement, or service. There is no documentation available or provided by the applicant that indicates his commander recommended or approved awards for the AFCM or AFAM. The timeline for submitting decorations is two years from the date of the act or achievement.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01238
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01238 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 JANUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). HQ AFPC/DPPPR state a thorough review of the applicant’s military records located no...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01904
Should the applicant provide supporting documentation from his former commander we would be willing to reconsider his request. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01257
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01257 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 OCT 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The date of his original and reaccomplished Décor-6 be changed to reflect 15 July 2003 and the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) with 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) covering the period 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-3806
Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36- 2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the Décor 6 must be before the date of the selections for the cycle in question. The applicant provides no documentation (such as e-mail traffic or letters from his chain of command) to prove that he aggressively pursued the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03859
Upon further review and research of AFI 36-2803, paragraph 2.4.3, it directs, “you may recommend an award for meritorious service at the end of an assignment even if the individual received an award for outstanding achievement during the time included in the recommendation; however, do not include previously recognized acts or achievements in the justification for the later award.” The JSCM was awarded for meritorious achievement during the specific time period of 14 Aug 72 through 20 Oct...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02326
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 | CY2008 | BC-2006-03390 Disapproval
The AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He did not realize this application was being submitted as a request for reconsideration of his MSM. Evidence has been presented that his decoration package was never forwarded through, or endorsed by, the deployed wing commander. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01050
When the CMSgt retired in Sep 04, the commander placed another SMSgt in the position since his medical appeal was not complete and it did not appear that he would have the two years retainablity because of his age. 1) The MPF should have placed his name on the promotion roster in either May or Jul; 2) He should have been placed on T-3 status similar to active duty members when diagnosed with cancer, which would have allowed him to continue duty in a drilling status, and be promoted to...