RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
		AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS	

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02387
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His previously awarded Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak 
leaf clusters (AFCM w/2OLC) be upgraded to the Meritorious 
Service Medal (MSM). 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The MSM his unit submitted was downgraded by the Group Commander 
(GP/CC).  The GP/CC violated AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards 
and Decorations Program, Para 3.3.1. by not forwarding the medal 
to the approval authority.  This was part of the Inspector 
General (IG) complaint he submitted.  The case was referred to 
the Air Force Reserve Service Commander (AFRS/CC) who stated 
that recipients of the MSM must serve at the flight chief level 
or above and have exceptional performance.  This standard is 
also a violation of AFI 36-2803 para 2.2.6 “Do not establish 
preconditions for an award.”  The preconditions set by the AFRS 
commander is the only reason he did not receive the MSM his unit 
leadership thought he earned.

The AFRS/CC found his performance in recruiting to be 
commendable but not consistent with past AFRS MSM recipients.  
The applicant provides MSM citations that two other recruiters 
received.  These documents are important as it proves these 
recruiters held the same positions he held and that it is 
possible to be awarded the MSM at a level below flight chief.  
Moreover, he earned the Enlisted Recruiter of the Year award for 
Fiscal Years (FY) 2009 and FY 2010.  In 2011, he became an 
officer accessions recruiter.  This program required a higher 
level of responsibility with less oversight.  He has had 
exceptional performance as evidenced by his Enlisted Performance 
Reports (EPR), in addition to the aforementioned accolades; he 
was awarded the squadron's  Officer Recruiter for FY 20ll and FY 
2012 and pushed the squadron to number two of eight in the 
recruiting group.  He was awarded the AFRS Silver badge for 
excellence for four consecutive years and the coveted AFRS 
Silver Badge ring which showcases the person who has exceeded 
the 115 percent target four times.  The AFRS Silver ring was 
awarded to only 2 of the 47 recruiters in his squadron.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of all 
of his EPRs while assigned to recruiting duty, AFRS/CC 
memorandum, award citations, and various other documents 
associated with his request

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was awarded the AFCM for meritorious service for 
the period 8 Oct 2008 through 15 Oct 2012.

The MSM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States who distinguish themselves by either outstanding 
achievement or meritorious service to the United States.

The AFCM was authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force on 
28 Mar 1958, for award to members of the Armed Forces of the 
United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Air 
Force after 24 Mar 1958, shall have distinguished themselves by 
meritorious achievement and service.  The degree of merit must 
be distinctive, though it need not be unique. 

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that the AFCM is the 
decoration the approval authority would have approved had all 
procedures been followed in accordance with AFI 36-2803.  The 
MSM may be awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces 
who distinguished themselves by outstanding meritorious 
achievement or service to the United States.

In a memorandum dated 19 Mar 2013, the AFRS commander states the 
recommendation for the MSM was not forwarded for his approval in 
accordance with AFI 36-2803.  He determined that no injustice 
occurred as he would have downgraded the recommendation to the 
AFCM had the MSM recommendation reached his desk.  The AFRS 
commander contends the applicant received the appropriate level 
of decoration for his act/achievement and was not "negatively 
impacted by ... procedural error."  The commander stated in his 
memorandum that generally personnel awarded the MSM had held 
supervisory positions at the flight chief or higher level and 
had exceptional duty performance.  The applicant claims there 
were preconditions set for award of the MSM appears to be a 
possible misinterpretation of the AFRS commander’s statement.

The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 Aug 2013 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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.  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 the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 4 and 5 Mar 2013, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-02387:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 May 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 2 Jul 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair


4


4