RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02943
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He be credited with five points towards promotion for his five Coast Guard Commandant Letters of Commendation (LOC).
2. The citations for the LOCs be included in his Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Selection Record for the promotion board’s consideration.
3. He be authorized wear of the ribbon denoting the LOC with his uniform (to be administratively resolved).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He lost five points towards promotion when he entered the Air Force because the Air Force does not recognize the Coast Guard Commandant’s LOC as a significant award. The award cannot be loaded into the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), nor can it be appropriately considered for the purpose of promotion. It is an injustice to all prior service Coast Guard members who now serve in the Air Force.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and the aforementioned LOCs.
The applicant’s complete submission, including attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from MilPDS indicates the applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 07.
On 21 Sep 10, AFPC/DPSIDR notified the applicant they were able to update MilPDS to indicate the applicant had been awarded the Coast Guard Commendant’s Letter of Commendation (CGCLC) with four gold stars (GS), Coast Guard Meritorious Team Commendation w/ 3GS, the Coast Guard Special Operations Service Ribbon, and the Secretary’s Outstanding Unit Award. They noted that while the Coast Guard Meritorious Team Commendation w/ 3GS and the Secretary’s Outstanding Unit Award will be reflected as unidentified ribbons in the virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF) and MilPDS, efforts were underway to resolve the discrepancy.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force and are attached at Exhibits C and D.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial with respect to crediting the applicant with five points toward promotion for the subject awards, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Under the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS), airmen are considered for promotion using personnel data elements which are converted to weighted factor scores for promotion selection purposes. Each award/decoration is assigned a specific point value based on the order of precedence and only those awards/decorations listed in AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, are assigned point values toward promotion and are filed in the SNCO Selection Record. Only awards for which a medal is awarded receive weighted points towards promotion; however, not all medals are used in the process.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/PB recommends denial of the applicant’s request to include the citations of the contested awards in his SNCO Selection Record, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System, is the governing directive and allows for citations for all awarded decorations to be filed in the SNCO Selection Record. The lowest decoration the Air Force authorizes for file in the selection record is the Achievement Medal. The applicant’s Coast Guard Achievement medal is on file in his SNCO Selection Record. The LOC is awarded for an act or service resulting in unusual and/or outstanding achievement, but lesser than that required for the Achievement Medal in accordance with COMDTINST M1650.25D. The Air Force complied with all governing directives in this case; thus, there is no injustice or issue for correction.
A complete copy of the AFPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 Nov 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. After careful consideration of applicant's requests and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The Board relies on the advisory opinions as the basis for our opinions. Absent evidence the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02943 in Executive Session on 22 Mar 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Member
Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02943 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Sep 10, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/PB, dated 25 Oct 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 10.
XXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04076
She was notified by the Base Records Office that the basic AFAM was missing from her personnel records and she needed to provide a copy or her records would be changed to reflect the assumed discrepancy. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Apr 11, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01764
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01764 INDEX CODE: 131.00 Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His promotion sequence number (PSN) to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6), which would have incremented on 1 Dec 07 for cycle 07E6, be reinstated. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00938
The Air Force should have made the decision of changing this policy to be effective for future recruiting goals in the recruiting career field and provided a definitive date of implementation rather than affecting personnel currently serving in that duty. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that he be awarded two WAPS points for his Air Force Recruiting ribbon. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02889
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating the applicant has provided no supporting documentation or conclusive evidence that the decoration was in official channels prior to selections for promotion cycle 12E5. In accordance with...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01934
On 10 Oct 06, the applicant received an MSM (2OLC) for retirement for the period 18 Nov 05 through 30 Nov 06. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial of the applicants request to reinstate the MSM for retirement indicating there is no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00646
However, the decoration was not updated in the system at the time initial selects were run as evidenced by the score notice dated 17 Mar 81. Also, the MSM (1OLC) was not considered by the promotion board. We noted applicant’s contention that the MSM, 1OLC, was not considered by the promotion board; however, since this award did not close out until 30 Jun 82, and was not awarded until 22 Jul 82, it did not meet the eligibility criteria for cycle 82S9.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01137
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial due to the untimely filing of this application. He had a date for promotion to SSgt under the WAPS system in 1970, and if he had reenlisted he would have been promoted. Due to the fact that he was not awarded the PH and AFCM in 2009 and 2010, timing...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02522
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C & D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR notes the VMPF data printout provided by the applicant indicates an MSM was approved on 2 Jul 01 by Special Order (SO) GC-283; however, the official SO 283...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03312
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID does not make a recommendation as to whether or not the applicants actions constitute extraordinary heroism, but defers to SAF/MRBP. Recommend the applicants request be denied since the AmM would...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01357
DPSOE states the first time the decoration in question (worth one point) would have been used in the promotion process was cycle 08E6 to the grade of TSgt. At the time of the DPSOE evaluation, the applicant had been considered and non-selected for promotion to TSgt three times (cycles 08E6, 09E6, and 10E6). 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...