Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03802
Original file (BC-2012-03802.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03802

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Force [sic] Meritorious Service Medal 
(MSM) in accordance with his retirement.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He retired from the California Air National Guard with no 
commemorative decoration.  The Assistant Adjutant General’s 
policy, at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve 
section, in April 1993, considered only field grade officers and 
above and senior enlisted members for award of the MSM.  His 
subsequent requests for award of the MSM to ANG representatives 
in the ensuing years went unanswered.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air National Guard who, 
on 13 April 1993, was transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel 
Center (ARPC) Retired Reserve section awaiting pay at age 60.  
He was officially retired for pay purposes effective 
22 March 2011, on his sixtieth birthday.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PS recommends denial.  A1PS states nomination and 
subsequent award of the MSM are not automatic at retirement nor 
are they restricted to certain grades.  In accordance with (IAW) 
AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, 
chapter 2, paragraph 2.2, recommendations for meritorious 
service are restricted to service that clearly places the 
individual above his or her peers and should not be submitted in 
an effort to “do something for your people.”  Decorations are 
not based upon an individual’s grade but on their level of 
responsibility and manner of performance.  

The complete ANG/A1PS evaluation is at exhibit C. 

NGB/A1P states they concur with the NGB/A1PS advisory and 
recommend relief not be granted based on the Air Force policy.  

The complete ANG/A1P evaluation is at exhibit D. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 11 January 2013 for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit E).  To date,  a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

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, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that 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 16 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
      , Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2012-03802 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 26 Apr 2012.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PS, w/atchs, dated 13 Dec 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 18 Dec 2012.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02121

    Original file (BC-2012-02121.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02121 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated as an F-16 pilot in the Oklahoma Air National Guard, effective 9 Jan 12. (3) In the judgment of the flight examiner, a Q2 may be given if there is justification based on Q- performance in one or several areas/subareas), requiring him...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04827

    Original file (BC-2011-04827.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04827 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 6H, which denotes “Pending Discharge in accordance with ANGR 39-10 – Involuntary (ANG Only),” be removed from his records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02236

    Original file (BC-2012-02236.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02236 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents. Therefore, he never received the Post 9/11 GI Bill separation counseling regarding the requirement to submit the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) request before his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02146

    Original file (BC-2012-02146.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He made every attempt to work with his assigned ANG unit to receive the required points, but was informed that he would not be able to conduct any drill days because he didn’t display a “commitment and clear understanding of how he wanted to proceed as a member of the ANG”. The POC of the previous unit notified the applicant that the unit commander inquired and found no slanderous comments made about the applicant between the two units. Leadership noted that ADLS was not required at the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00677

    Original file (BC-2013-00677.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, states in cases of contractual errors, the Force Support Squadron (FSS) will process a case file to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) outlining the facts of the situation, along with the individual airman’s desire, the commander’s recommendation and the FSS comments and recommendation; and that the airman may petition the Board if they do not agree with the final decision. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05966

    Original file (BC-2012-05966.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05966 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from “6U” (Air National Guard (ANG) Not Selected for Retention by the Commander) to “6A” (ANG Eligible to Reenlist/Extend – Selected by...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01112

    Original file (BC 2013 01112.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01112 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 6H, which denotes (Air National Guard (ANG) pending discharge in accordance with ANGR 39-10 – involuntary) be changed to an eligible code. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00803

    Original file (BC-2013-00803.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was denied promotion because the MS ANG reneged on his assignment orders without advising him just weeks after arriving on station. The resource to promote him to the grade of SMSgt as reflected on his orders was taken away when another member was placed in his position. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05576

    Original file (BC 2012 05576.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05576 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: As amended, his date of appointment into the Air National Guard (ANG) be changed from 17 Sep 12 to 1 Aug 12. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Air Force Recruiters failed to submit his AF Form...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01685

    Original file (BC-2012-01685.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 2 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. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record Exhibit C. Letter,...