Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02483
Original file (BC-2006-02483.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02016

    Original file (BC-2006-02016.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-01862.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2005-02287.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-02543.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-01662.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-02684.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-02652.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2006-03969.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-02017.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-00307.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.