RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03088
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His supervisor believes that his service for the time period from
July 2003 to January 2008 is deserving of an MSM.
The decoration was not submitted due to concern about his
participation statusthree bad Retention/Retirement years. This
is no longer an issue since his participation points were
administratively corrected in July 2011.
The applicant provides a memorandum from his supervisor, and a
MSM citation.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was involuntarily separated from the Air Force
Reserve on 1 Mar 09, based on his second deferral for promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel.
In Mar 11, he applied to the AFBCMR for correction of his
participation points to give him credit for previous years of
unsatisfactory participation. The applicants records were
administratively corrected in Jul 11.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPTS recommends denial. DPTS states that all Air Force
decorations require a signed written recommendation be submitted
into official channels and processed through the approval
authority. The recommendation must be submitted within two
years, and the decoration presented within three years of the
act, achievement or service performed.
The applicant submitted the MSM citation on 1 Feb 12. The
service period for the MSM is for 7 Jul 03 through 1 Jan 08. The
citation was not put into official channels within two years or
awarded within three years of the act, achievement or service
performed.
The MSM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the
United States who distinguished themselves by either outstanding
achievement or meritorious service to the United States.
The complete DPTS evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 30 Aug 12, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC)
recommends denial, stating, in part, that the decoration package
does not include the proper endorsements or recommendation for
the award.
The recommendation for the MSM is signed by the applicants
supervisor, Director, Crisis Action Team, and is not further
endorsed by the Group Commander or the Wing Commander
(equivalent). The approval authority for an MSM is the Wing (or
equivalent) Commander. In the case of the 61st Air Base Group,
the Space and Missile Systems Center Vice Commander is the Wing
(equivalent) Commander. The applicant did not provide this
endorsement or the previous disapproval for the MSM prior to his
separation.
SAFPC states that the actions of the applicant during the
recommended period meet the criteria for award of the MSM.
The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 28 Mar 13, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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.
Should the applicant obtain the proper endorsements noted by
SAFPC we would be willing to reconsider his request. In view of
the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis upon which to favorably consider his request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number
BC-2012-03088 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPTS, dated 23 Aug 12.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 27 Mar 13.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Mar 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04563
In accordance with the Delegation of Approval Authority for Award of the Legion of Merit (LOM) to USAF Members message, date time group 121758Z May 09, section 5H, liberal interpretation of award criteria is appropriate for officers serving in the grade of colonel and above, provided the officer's most recent performance warrants such consideration. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force,...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04102
On 22 Jan 03, the applicant was reduced in grade from technical sergeant to staff sergeant, with a new date of rank of 21 Nov 02, as a result of an Article 15, due to government travel card (GTC) misuse. SAFPC has reviewed this application, and determined the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant and should be advanced on the retired list in the grade of technical sergeant when he reaches 30 years of active service. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02137
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are at Exhibits B and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR notes that while serving as a first sergeant and attached to the Army, the applicant was deployed to Balad Air Base (AB), Iraq from 5 Dec 04 to 5 Apr 05. They recommend the Board review the nominating official’s original...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02065
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02065 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 AUG 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM), rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM, 4OLC), for the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-03038
In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her original MSD extension request and correspondence related to the matter under review. On 15 Dec 08, NGB/A1POE recommended approval; however, the ANG Chief of Chaplains (NGB/HC) subsequently recommended denial, indicating the applicant’s retention was not in the best interests of the Air Force. However, inasmuch as the Board lacks the authority to reinstate applicants into the ANG, we believe the proper and fitting relief in...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00363
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. However, other than his own assertions, no evidence has been presented to show that the recommendation and processing of the AFCM was not in accordance with the applicable Air Force Instruction. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 23 Feb 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05436
Before issuing the LOR, the OG/CC requested a copy of the LOR purportedly given to the applicant while performing duties at Tyndall AFB since there was no record of the LOR in the applicants personnel file. The OG/CC never received a copy of said LOR and therefore documented the applicants misconduct with the LOR, dated 18 Sep 10. A complete copy of the AFRC/JA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02620
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02620 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be corrected to reflect award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). Per AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01805
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01805 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be credited with four (4) additional points for the Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 30 Jul 09. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTS recommends approval, stating, in part, that...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01904
Should the applicant provide supporting documentation from his former commander we would be willing to reconsider his request. ________________________________________________________________ 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...