RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03390
                                             INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While deployed in December 2005, he  submitted  decoration  recommendations,
to include his MSM, which were wrongfully blocked at the deployed  location.
 In February 2006, he called to check the status of the recommendations  and
was told that nothing was going to be done concerning  the  recommendations,
and that they were not forwarded to HQ United  States  Central  Command  Air
Forces  (USCENTAF),  the   approval   authority.    Not   forwarding   these
recommendations was in violation of Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-2803,
paragraph 3.3.1, which states “Forward recommendations  placed  in  official
channels to the designated  approval  or  disapproval  authority  for  final
action regardless of whether intermediate endorsing officials or  commanders
determine the award does not meet the criteria.”

While deployed, he was told that he should not have  raised  concerns  about
the deployed location’s pirating of music and movies, and  hosting  them  on
an  official  government  server.   He  notified  the  host  deployed   wing
communications squadron about the illegal activity and was told it was  done
for “morale” and it would continue.  The next day, he was counseled for  not
being a “team player.”

He was  deployed  to  Iraq  with  approximately  one-week’s  notice  to  fix
accountability and casualty reporting problems with the 732nd  Expeditionary
Mission Support Group.  His four-person team established  a  first-of-a-kind
regional Personnel Support of Contingency Operations (PERSCO) team and  took
over accountability of 1,400  airmen  previously  assigned  to  eight  other
PERSCO teams.  They handled  actions/reports  for  27 casualties,  receiving
kudos from the chief of Air Force Casualty Operations.  They also took  over
a backlog of Army decorations and processed 234 in two  weeks.   The  duties
they  assumed  were  previously  performed  by  three   assigned   personnel
specialists who all received Air Force  Commendation  Medals  (AFCMs).   His
four-person team was replaced by a permanent rotation of eight  PERSCO  team
members.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of  a  personal  statement,
his draft decoration  nomination,  his  AF  Form  3994,  Recommendation  for
Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations, and a letter from SAF/MRBR.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  major,
and was deployed to Iraq for a 47-day deployment from November 2004  through
January 2005.  On 13 February 2008, he advised the Board that he  wished  to
change this application to read that he be awarded the AFCM vice the MSM.

USCENTAF is the approval authority for all  decoration  nominations  arising
from OEF/OIF operations, to include the AFCM.  AFI 36-2803,  paragraph  3.8,
Special Procedures for Decorations Arising From Combat  Operations,  states,
in part,:  “To  ensure  consistency  for  decorations  arising  from  combat
operations, the NAF and JTF/CTF Air Component Commanders shall  forward,  in
a timely manner, all recommendations for decorations arising out  of  combat
operations, not within their authority to approve, to the  MAJCOM  Commander
serving as the Air Component Commander to the supported CINC….   The  MAJCOM
commander… will consolidate decoration recommendations submitted by the  NAF
or Air Force Component Commanders.  To the extent feasible, they  should  be
evaluated  only  after  they  have  been   aggregated….”    For   operations
pertaining to OEF/OIF, 9th Air Force  (9AF)  was  designated  as  HQ  United
States Central Command Air  Forces  (USCENTAF)  and  as  the  Air  Component
Command   to   the   supported    CINC.     Beginning    in    June    2002,
approval/disapproval authority for all  decoration  nominations  (below  the
level of the Silver Star) for OEF/OIF  operations  was  delegated  from  the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) to 9AF/USCENTAF/CC.

Although AFCM nominations would not require a formal  boarding  process  for
USCENTAF/CC approval, they must still be processed through and  be  endorsed
by the deployed wing commander.  Once AFCM nominations are endorsed  by  the
deployed wing commander, the  Unit  Decoration  Processing  Unit  (UDPU)  at
USCENTAF prepares the  orders  and  citations  without  formal  approval  by
USCENTAF/CC.

________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial based on USCENTAF’s recommendation which  they
have attached.

In a letter dated 6 December 2007, USCENTAF/CC  stated  that  he  would  not
recommend award of the MSM  without  the  endorsement  of  the  group  [sic]
commander.  He stated that it appears that the decoration package  (DÉCOR  6
and justification) was  never  submitted  to  the  wing  commander  for  his
endorsement and  was  thereafter  forwarded  to  the  USCENTAF/UDPU,  as  is
required for his  approval  and  subsequent  award  of  the  MSM.   USCENTAF
Decoration  Guidebook,  paragraph  3.1,  states  that  the   deployed   wing
commander must endorse medal recommendations for MSMs and above.  His  medal
package was submitted at the group level and the  group  commander  did  not
have the authority to approve such an award.   The  evidence  in  this  case
shows his chain of  command  did  not  support  awarding  the  MSM  for  his
deployment.

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.  His intent  was  to  submit  this  request  for
reconsideration for an AFCM.  He originally  drew-up  a  package  to  submit
decorations for himself and his team, and must have made  a  cut  and  paste
error in the cover letter.  He wishes to change this request to  be  awarded
the AFCM.

________________________________________________________________

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.   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 conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   Although
the applicant has amended his application to be awarded the  AFCM  vice  the
MSM, we note that  both  decorations  must  be  forwarded  through,  and  be
endorsed by, the  deployed  wing  commander  before  final  approval  and/or
action can be  taken  by  USCENTAF,  the  final  approval/action  authority.
Evidence has been presented that his decoration package was never  forwarded
through, or endorsed by, the deployed wing  commander.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of 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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-03390
in Executive Session on 13 March 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
                       Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Extracts From Applicant's Master Personnel
                Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 26 Dec 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Feb 08.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair