RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02331
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.01

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The applicant submits five  DD  Forms  149  requesting  the  following
corrections to his records:

1.  He be awarded the Global  War  on  Terrorism  Expeditionary  Medal
(GWOT-EM) for his assignment to Operation Enduring  Freedom  prior  to
19 March 2003.

2.  He be awarded the Afghanistan Campaign Medal (ACM), Iraqi Campaign
Medal (ICM), with one bronze service star (w/1BSS),  NATO  Medal,  and
the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM).  (The ICM, w/1BSS and AFCAM
was administratively corrected by HQ AFPC/DPSIDR).

3.  His DD Form 214 be amended to  reflect  award  of  the  Air  Force
Meritorious Service Medal” (MSM) rather than the  Defense  Meritorious
Service Medal (DMSM); however, he is not requesting SSB  consideration
for this award.

4.  Block 8a on his DD Form 214 be changed from AFELM JLATF West OL OT
(ZPA) to AFELM JIAFT West OL OT (ZPA).

5.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration
by  the  Calendar  Year  2000A  (CY00A)  Lieutenant  Colonel   Central
Selection Board (CSB) be corrected to  reflect  a  Definitely  Promote
(DP), he be reinstated to active duty and assigned a  school  slot  at
the Air  War  College,  with  a  follow-up  assignment  in  a  command
position.

6.  His corrected records be considered for promotion to the grade  of
lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB)  for  the  CY00A
Lieutenant Colonel CSB; and/or he be directly promoted to the grade of
lieutenant colonel as though selected by the CY00A CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should be entitled to the requested awards in conjunction with  his
service in support of  Operation  ENDURING  FREEDOM  (OEF)  and  IRAQI
FREEDOM (OIF).

His CY00A PRF was  illegally  changed  from  “Definitely  Promote”  to
“Promote.”

In support of his appeals, the applicant submits copies of his DD Form
214, deployment orders, and other supporting documents.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant  entered  active  duty  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on
5 Jan 84.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of major with an
effective date and date of rank of 1 Jan 96.

He was considered and nonselected by the CY99B, CY00A,  CY01B,  CY02B,
and the CY03A Lieutenant Colonel CSBs.

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  1996
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      05 Mar 96              Meets Standards (MS)
      05 Mar 97              MS
      05 Mar 98              MS
      05 Mar 99              MS
      08 Oct 99              MS
      03 Jul 00              MS
      29 Jun 01              Training Report
      03 Jul 01              MS
      03 Jul 02              MS
      08 Apr 03              MS

On 30 Jun 04, he was relieved from active duty and retired for  length
of service, effective 1 Jul  04,  in  the  grade  of  major.   He  was
credited with 20 years, 5 months, and 26 days of active service.

By letter, dated 21 Aug 08, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP advised the applicant that
in order to properly evaluate his request to have his PRF  changed  to
reflect “Definitely Promote” rather than “Promote,” he would  have  to
provide the following information/documentation:

      a.  Specify exactly which PRF is in question.

      b.  Provide the reacommplished PRF.

      c.  Provide a statement from the senior rater.

      d.  Provide a statement from the Management Level  Review  (MLR)
board president.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 was administratively corrected to  reflect
award of the ICM, w/1BSS, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOT-
SM), and the AFCAM.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial of the applicant’s requests for award
of the ACM, GWOT-EM, NATO  Medal,  and  changing  his  DD Form 214  to
reflect award of the Air Force MSM, rather than Defense MSM.

AFPC/DPSIDR indicates that to be  eligible  for  the  ACM,  a  service
member must be  assigned  or  attached  to  a  unit  participating  in
Operation  ENDURING  FREEDOM  for  30  consecutive  days  or  for   60
nonconsecutive days in Afghanistan ….

Servicemembers who qualified for the GWOT-EM by reason of  service  in
Afghanistan between 24 Oct 01 – 30 Apr 05 shall remain  qualified  for
that medal.  However, any servicemember who wishes to  do  so  may  be
awarded the ACM in lieu of the GWOT-EM.  No servicemember is  entitled
to both the GWOT-EM and the ACM for  the  same  act,  achievement,  or
period of  service.   They  were  unable  to  verify  the  applicant’s
entitlement to the ACM, because they found no evidence of a deployment
to Afghanistan.

To be awarded the GWOT-EM, individuals must have deployed  abroad,  on
or after 11 Sep 01 and a future date to be determined, for service  in
the OEF and OIF.  They  were  able  to  determine  the  applicant  was
deployed to Kuwait  then  further  deployed  to  Iraq  in  2003.   The
applicant was awarded the ICM for this deployment;  therefore,  he  is
ineligible to receive the GWOT-EM for the same period.

Personnel eligible for the NATO medal are those members  of  units  or
staffs as set out in the Joint Operations Area  (JOA)  Combined  Joint
Statement  of  Requirements  taking  part  in   NATO   operations   in
Afghanistan in accordance with the qualifying conditions.  Entitlement
will be acquired by those forces under NATO command and control  while
in the JOA, and those deployed to the JOA under  national  command  in
support  of  the  NATO  operation.   They  were   unable   to   locate
documentation to substantiate  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  NATO
Medal.

Since the MSM reflected on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is a Department
of Defense (DoD) award, it cannot be altered to be service specific as
he has requested.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request  for  SSB
consideration and does not support a direct  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel.

They note HQ AFPC/DPSIDR verified the applicant’s entitlement  to  the
AFCAM and the ICM, w/1BSS; however, these awards are not authorized to
be reflected on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB).   Therefore,  there
is no entitlement to SSB consideration.

They also note HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP determined that additional  information
was required to properly evaluate the applicant’s PRF issue;  however,
he did not respond.

According to HQ AFPC/DPSOO, they found no injustice or error in regard
to the applicant’s request  for  direct  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.  The results of the CSBs were based on a  complete
review of his entire selection  record,  assessing  the  whole  person
factors such as job performance,  professional  qualities,  depth  and
breadth  of  experience,  leadership,  and  education.   Although  the
officer may be qualified  for  promotion,  he  may  not  be  the  best
qualified of other eligible officers competing for the limited  number
of promotion vacancies in the judgment of  a  selection  board  vested
with discretionary authority to make such selections.  Furthermore, to
grant a direct promotion would be unfair to  all  other  officers  who
have extremely competitive records but did not get promoted.

In HQ AFPC/DPSOO’s view, Congress and DoD have made clear their intent
that errors ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved  through
the use of SSBs.  Unfortunately, in the  applicant’s  case,  not  only
would a direct promotion be inappropriate, but SSB consideration would
also be inappropriate.  To be eligible for consideration  by  an  SSB,
the officer’s records must have had some type of  correction  made  to
it.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the  applicant  provides
supportive statements from the former Vice Commander and  Director  of
Personnel, Seventh Air Force.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, regarding his requests for award of the  ACM,  GWOT-EM,  NATO
Medal, and change of his DD Form 214 to reflect award of the Air Force
MSM,  rather  than  Defense  MSM,  we  agree  with  the  opinion   and
recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPSIDR and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion the applicant has not substantiated his  burden  of
establishing he has suffered either an error or injustice.  In view of
the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting these requests.

4.  Concerning the applicant’s request  to  change  Block  8a  on  his
DD Form 214 from “JLATF” West OL OT (ZPA) to “AFELM JIATF” West OL  OT
(ZPA), we note this  request  will  be  resolved  administratively  by
HQ AFPC/DPSOY.  We further note that since this is not a document seen
by the  promotion  board,  no  entitlement  to  SSB  consideration  is
warranted as a result of  the  corrective  action.   Additionally,  it
appears his records have been corrected  administratively  to  reflect
award of the AFCAM and ICM, w/1BSS.  However, AFPC/DPSOO  has  advised
that since the awards are  not  authorized  to  be  reflected  on  the
applicant’s Officer Selection Brief, there is also no  entitlement  to
SSB consideration as a result of this corrective action.

5.  The applicant alleges that his  PRF  was  illegally  changed  from
“Definitely Promote” to “Promote” prior to the convening of the  CY00A
CSB.  As a result, he should be reinstated to active duty and assigned
a school slot at the Air War College, with a follow-up assignment in a
command position.   However,  in  our  view,  the  applicant  has  not
exhausted all available administrative remedies.  In this respect,  we
note  AFPC/DPSIDEP  has  advised   the   applicant   that   additional
information is required  to  properly  evaluate  the  PRF  issues,  to
include the particular PRF, statements from the senior rater  and  MLR
president, and a reaccomplised PRF.  In view of the above, we find  no
basis to recommend favorable action regarding his PRF  and  associated
request  for  relief.   However,  should  the  applicant  provide  the
requested documentation, we may be inclined to reconsider this portion
of his appeal.

6.  In respect to his request for a direct promotion; officers compete
for promotion under the whole person concept whereby  a  multitude  of
factors are carefully assessed by the selection board members prior to
scoring the record.  They may be qualified but – in  the  judgment  of
selection board members vested with discretionary  authority  to  make
the selections –- he/she may  not  be  the  best  qualified  of  those
available   for   the   limited   number   of   promotion   vacancies.
Consequently,  a  direct  promotion  should  be  granted  only   under
extraordinary circumstances; i.e.,  a  showing  the  officer’s  record
cannot be reconstructed in such a manner so as to  permit  him/her  to
compete for promotion on a fair and equitable basis;  a  showing  that
had the original errors not occurred, the  probability  of  his  being
selected for promotion would have been extremely high.  We do not find
these factors  in  this  case.   Therefore,  based  on  the  available
evidence and  absence  any  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

7.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2008-02331 in Executive Session on 23 June 2009, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Ms. Debra M. Czajkowski, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2008-02331 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 15 Apr 08 and 15 Jun 08,
                with attachments.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 30 Jun 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOO, dated 13 Nov 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 08.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 08, w/atchs.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair