RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01557

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His “non-recommendation” for award of the Air Force Commendation 
Medal (AFCM) be changed to “recommend.”  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never received any negative paperwork or an explanation from 
his leadership as to why he was non-recommended for the 
decoration.  He displayed meritorious service during his entire 
3-year assignment at Yokota Air Base (AB), Japan.  During that 
time, he earned the John L. Levitow, leadership award while 
attending Airman Leadership School, his Community College of the 
Air Force (CCAF) degree, recognition as Airman of the Year of 
his squadron, and noncommissioned officer (NCO) of the month 
while deployed.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his 
enlisted performance reports for the period in question and the 
non-selection for the decoration.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of Staff Sergeant, E-5.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states the applicant was 
being considered for the decoration for permanent change of 
station.  The applicant provided a Decor 6, Recommendation for 
Decoration, for the Air Force Commendation Medal for meritorious 
achievement from 30 May 2008 through 29 May 2011.  The Decor 6, 
in which the applicant was not recommended for award of the Air 
Force Commendation Medal, was signed by the Logistics Readiness 
Squadron Flight Commander and endorsed by the Logistics 
Readiness Squadron Commander.  In accordance with AFI 36-2803, 
The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, paragraph 2.2.6, 
“no individual is automatically  entitled to an award upon 
completion of an operation temporary duty or departure for an 
assignment.”  While there appears to be no blemish on the 
applicants record, it appears there is no error or injustice 
with this request as the applicant was considered and a decision 
was determined that the his performance, while commendable, did 
not warrant the approval of an Air Force Commendation Medal.  
Should the applicant wish to pursue the Air Force Commendation  
Medal, the applicant should appeal to the original approval 
authority, for consideration.  

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. 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  In further support of his request, the applicant reiterated 
his previous contention that he displayed meritorious service 
during his 3-year assignment to Yokota AB Japan and provided 
additional information.  Among other achievements, he 
highlighted his responsibilities as trainer for unit airman on 
various aspects of hazardous material (HAZMAT) handling as it 
relates to vehicle maintenance.  He also volunteered his time to 
help the Red Cross, participated in the base Toastmaster club, 
picked up trash around the local community, volunteered for an 
extended deployment, as well as performed additional tasks for 
his squadron, one of which led to an “Outstanding” rating. 

2.  The applicant further states, in the last few months of his 
assignment an 8.9 magnitude earthquake struck the country and a 
humanitarian support mission was established to help the 
affected.  During this time, he assisted as an Augmentee with 
flightline security and was the NCOIC for cargo security.  He 
was away from his shop performing these duties for nearly a 
month and feels the new squadron commander, flight chief and 
flight commander were not afforded the chance to really get to 
see his record and see all of his accomplishments.  Had they had 
the time to look at what he had contributed and accomplished, 
not just for himself, but also for his flight, his squadron and 
even the base they would have recommended him for this medal.  

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 error or injustice.  We took 
careful notice of the applicant’s complete submission in support 
of his request and we are not persuaded that he should be 
awarded the AFCM.  His contentions in this regard are noted; 
however, in our opinion, the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility has adequately addressed these contentions and we 
are in agreement with its recommendation.  While the applicant 
may believe he is deserving of the AFCM, sufficient evidence has 
not been provided which would persuade us that the commander 
acted inappropriately in deciding not to award him the AFCM or 
that his decision represented an abuse of discretionary 
authority in making that decision.  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 7 January 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2013-01557:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 March 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 May 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 August 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair