Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03809
Original file (BC-2011-03809.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03809 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be added to his record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. At the time he did not realize that officers received 
permanent change of station (PCS) awards so he never asked. 

 

2. He discovered that his supervisor at the time did not put him 
in for a PCS award and was told there was nothing they could do 
since it was past three years. Based on the three-year rule, he 
did not pursue any actions. 

 

3. His current senior leadership questioned why he did not 
receive an award considering he had good officer performance 
reports (OPRs). When he questioned his chain of command they 
expressed disbelief and recommended that an award be given. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides various letters 
of support, his AF Forms 707B, Company Grade Officer Performance 
Report (2LT thru CAPT) for the period beginning 4 Sep 03 thru 
3 Sept 2006 and a proposed citation for the AFCM. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

During the time period in question, the applicant was assigned to 
the 45th Space Wing, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. 

 

The AFCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States who, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force 
after 24 March 1958, shall have distinguished themselves by 
meritorious achievement and service. The degree of merit must be 
distinctive, though it need not be unique. Acts of courage which 
do not involve the voluntary risk of life required for the 
Soldier's Medal (or the Airman's Medal now authorized for the Air 
Force) may be considered for the AFCM. 

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. DPSIDRA states in accordance 
with AFI 36-2803, Awards and Decorations Program, no individual 
is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an 
operational temporary duty (TDY) or departure for an assignment. 
There is no justification provided by the applicant's former 
chain of command as to why a recommendation for a PCS decoration 
was not processed within a timely manner. In the letter of 
endorsement from his former commander, he states an 
administrative error resulted in the applicant not receiving an 
end of tour decoration; however, there is no explanation as to 
what the administrative error was. It appears for whatever 
reason, the applicant simply was not recommended for a PCS 
decoration. DPSIDRA states they are unable to verify an 
injustice exists. 

 

The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant provided a letter from his former commander. The 
commander states he witnessed the applicant’s accomplishments and 
achievements and concurs with the previous commanders and 
colleagues that attest to his distinctive performance and 
results. The former commander states the AFCM was warranted then 
and should be awarded now. However, significant turnovers and 
personnel issues concerning the applicant’s then supervisor are 
the most likely reasons this was not properly recommended and 
awarded at the time. 

 

The complete response is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting 
relief. In this regard, we note the applicant has provided 
letters of support from several senior officers stating he did 
not receive the AFCM due to an administrative oversight. We note 
the office of primary responsibility (OPR) states the applicant 
did not provide justification as to why the decoration was not 
processed in a timely manner. However, in response to the OPR’s 


advisory, his former commander states significant turnovers and 
personnel issues concerning the applicant’s supervisor at the 
time were contributing factors as to why the AFCM was not awarded 
at the time. With no basis to question the applicant’s former 
commander or the three other senior officers’ integrity in this 
matter, it is our opinion that any doubt should be resolved in 
the applicant's favor. In view of the above, it is our opinion 
that his request for the award of the AFCM is warranted and the 
record should be corrected as indicated below. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was awarded 
the Air Force Commendation Medal, for meritorious service for the 
period of 4 September 2003 to 3 September 2006. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 
BC-2011-03809 in Executive Session on 14 Dec 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The Board voted to correct the record as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-
2011-038098 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 26 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SMC/GPC dated 28 Nov 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04203

    Original file (BC-2011-04203.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04203 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). Although the applicant’s DD Form 214 dated 24 November 2006 shows AFCM listed under the awards and decorations section, there is no official documentation located within the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02326

    Original file (BC-2007-02326.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current Air Force promotion policy, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2, {sic – should be Rule 7} dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Although the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s near-miss for promotion, evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04722

    Original file (BC-2011-04722.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She requested supplemental consideration for selection to E-6, but her request was denied and she was told to file a claim with the Air Force Board of Corrections of Military Records. 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/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01034

    Original file (BC-2012-01034.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Had the squadron followed through with the AmnM processing, the former commander would have seen and approved the awards. One of the approved citations actually states "voluntary risk of life," which is what all of their original citations read before citations were changed to the AFCM for “acts of courage.” The AFI states that the AmnM will not be awarded for "normal performance of duties." Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Dec 2012, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03777

    Original file (BC-1997-03777.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Inasmuch as the above corrections were accomplished subsequent to his consideration for promotion by the CY97B and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, we recommend that the applicant’s corrected record be reviewed when he is considered for promotion by an SSB. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY 97B (2 June 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9703777

    Original file (9703777.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Inasmuch as the above corrections were accomplished subsequent to his consideration for promotion by the CY97B and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, we recommend that the applicant’s corrected record be reviewed when he is considered for promotion by an SSB. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY 97B (2 June 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02840

    Original file (BC-2006-02840.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The commander stated he contacted her former commander to determine the specifics of her decoration and fully supports supplemental promotion consideration. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends approval of the applicant’s request to have her initiation date of the AFCM coincide with her PCS in Aug 05 (Exhibit C). Therefore we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802902

    Original file (9802902.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant contends his supervisor rendered the contested 3 March 1994 report in reprisal against him and requests the Board remove the report from his record. While the applicant has provided a statement from his former supervisor who states that a recommendation package was submitted, we are not persuaded that his former supervisor had the authority to submit an award recommendation or that the applicant was eligible for an award at the time his supervisor went PCS. If supplemental...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102559

    Original file (0102559.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no evidence the decoration was submitted before the date of selections for cycle 00E7. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRRP states, in part, that if the Board determines the applicant should be promoted to the grade of master sergeant effective 1 October 2000, they will correct his records to reflect that he held the grade of master sergeant on his last day of active duty and was retired in the grade of master sergeant effective 1 January 2001....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01974

    Original file (BC-2011-01974.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01974 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge be corrected to reflect award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). There was no official documentation located in the applicant’s military record reflecting...