RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02483
INDEX CODE: 107.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 February 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Global War on Terrorism-Service Medal (GWOT-S) and the
Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM). In addition, he requests his Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) for the period 8 March 2002 through 28 January
2003 be filed in his record.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has met all the criteria for award of the GWOT-S and the KDSM. Both
awards were authorized after his retirement. His EPR closing 28 January
2003 was lost after his retirement. Without this report, he has no
official proof that he was qualified as a Watch Officer; therefore, putting
him at a disadvantage for employment.
In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of his flight
records and a copy of his draft EPR closing 28 January 2003.
The applicant’s submissions (three DD Forms 149), with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 June 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age
of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. The
applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7)
with a date of rank of 1 December 2000.
The applicant was released from active duty on 30 June 2003 with a
honorable characterization of service and retired effective 1 July 2003.
He served 22 years and 12 days of active duty of which 11 years, 10 months,
and 8 days was foreign service.
On 19 September 2006, subsequent to the applicant’s appeal, the Air Force
Personnel Center Recognition Programs Manager notified the applicant that
his entitlement to the GWOT-S had been verified and his military personnel
records would be corrected to reflect the award.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denying the applicant’s request to insert his EPR
closing 28 January 2003 into his military personnel records. DPPPEP states
the applicant’s last report on file closed out on 1 February 2002. His
next annual report was projected for 1 February 2003; however, his
retirement was approved on 17 October 2002 with a retirement effective date
of 1 July 2003. Air Force Instruction 36-2406, Paragraph 3.5.9.1,
indicates a performance report is not required for personnel with an
approved retirement date when the retirement date is within one year of the
projected annual closeout date of the report and the retirement application
was approved prior to the projected annual closeout date. Based on this
guidance, the applicant’s report was optional for the rater to complete.
The applicant has provided a copy of a draft, incomplete, unsigned version
of the 28 January 2003 EPR; however, the applicant does not provide any
support from the evaluators stating the report is accurate as written and
that it should be made a matter of record. Draft copies of EPRs are not
official documents and should not be used to place in the military
personnel record.
The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
DPPPR recommends the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect the award
of the GWOT-S. They have verified his entitlement to the award and have
forwarded his records to the Retirements and Separations Section to have
the GWOT-S added to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge
From Active Duty.
AFPC/DPPPR recommends denying the applicant’s request for award of the
KDSM. DPPPR states that in February 2004, the Department of Defense
approved award of the KDSM to Air Force active duty personnel for military
service in the Republic of Korea (ROK) and surrounding waters after 28 July
1954 to a date to be determined by the Secretary of Defense. To be
eligible for the KDSM, a member must have been assigned, attached, or
mobilized to units operating or serving on the land area of the ROK, the
contiguous water out to 12 nautical miles, and airspace above the land area
of Korea and water areas. In addition, personnel must have been physically
present in the areas indicated for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive
days. The applicant has requested the KDSM on two previous occasions and
each time after a thorough review of his military records, DPPPR was unable
to verify the applicant was in Korea. The flight records, submitted by the
applicant, do not indicate Korean service; therefore, he is not eligible
for the KDSM.
The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29
September 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 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 note the applicant’s records will be
administratively corrected to reflect his award of the GWOT-S; therefore,
we will only address his request for award of the KDSM and his EPR for the
period 8 March 2002 through 28 January 2003. After a thorough review of
the available records, we found no evidence that the applicant is eligible
for the award of the KDSM. We note the applicant’s assertion that he is
entitled to the KDSM; however, he has not provided evidence to support his
entitlement to the award, nor does the evidence of record support his
contention. In regard to the requested EPR closing 28 January 2003, we
note the report was not required due to the applicant’s projected
retirement. In addition, the applicant does not provide support from his
evaluators stating the report is accurate as written or that it should be
placed in his military records. Based on the foregoing, we agree with the
opinions from the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt
their rationale as the basis of our conclusions in this case. Accordingly,
we find no basis to favorably consider 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 this application in Executive
Session on 5 December 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-02483
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Sep 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 19 Sep 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 06.
MICHAEL V. BARBINO
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02016
The complete DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 2 October 2006, the applicant reiterates his earlier contentions and submits a trip report that was not submitted with his initial application (Exhibit E). After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the applicant is eligible for the award of the ICM or ACM medals. Exhibit B....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01862
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide mid-term performance feedback on 1 March 2006 as indicated on the report, nor was verbal feedback provided from the endorsers. We note the applicant’s assertion that his chain of command did not provide written or verbal performance feedback; however, we also note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02287
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02287 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect receipt of the Afghanistan Campaign Medal (AGCM), the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOT-S) and the Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM). Personnel must...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02543
They further state Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 2803, paragraph 3.3, states “Forward all recommendations through the normal chain of command of the person being recommended. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. HQ AFPC/DPSO recommends the applicant’s request to have the LOR dated 20 September 2005 removed from her records be denied. The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence to establish that the LOR she received was unjust or unwarranted; the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01662
The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 15 Oct 02 5 15 Oct 03* 4 15 Oct 04 5 15 Oct 05 5 *Contested reports The ERAB considered and denied the applicant’s request to remove the contested report on 18 October 2005. However, while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02684
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of two statements from orderly room personnel; EPRs closing 31 December 2004 and 19 April 2004; Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 1 July 2004; Inspector General (IG) Personal and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint; IG Complaint Response; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports; Record Transmittal; and Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Disapproval. The applicant received a rating of a “4” on his EPR for the rating...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02652
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel replies that they have demonstrated an unequivocal nexus between the senior rater and the contested OPR. Considering the documented demeaning attitude her senior rater had towards women, we find it feasible to believe the applicant’s senior rater may have inappropriately influenced the additional rater’s downgrading of the report in question. NOVEL Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03969
In support of her request, the applicant submitted copies of an excerpt of AFI 36-2406; AFPC/DPMM memorandum dated 11 April 2006; Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) letter dated 16 December 2005; two Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA) letters dated 16 December 2005; Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision; proposed EPR closing 14 January 2005; contested EPR closing 14 January 2005; Meritorious Service Medal documents; and EPR closing 14 January 2006 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02017
Therefore the only remaining issue before the Board is the award of the ICM. 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00307
The applicant fails to state what information on the report made it "weak". The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. Other than his own assertions, we are not persuaded by the evidence presented that his rating chain abused their authority.