RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		 DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01781
                                 COUNSEL:  NONE
	 			 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), for the period of   
12 May 2005 to 7 Nov 2005, be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal 
(BSM).  

2. His AFAM, for the period of 24 Jan 2007 to 27 Jul 2007, be 
upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM).  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has exhausted all available administrative remedies for 
reconsideration of the awards.  He was verbally told his 
requests for upgrade were disapproved because of his grade of 
Staff Sergeant (SSgt) and “political sensitivities” that would 
imply that the colonels making the downgrade decisions made a 
mistake.

Due to the sensitivity of the missions, he cannot be as detailed 
as he would like and some specific details were omitted from his 
citations; however, he provides copies of his Enlisted 
Performance Reports (EPR) and other relevant documents to 
support his requests.  

He was assigned to the counterintelligence team in Iraq and was 
responsible for collecting intelligence that led to the live 
capture of two different personnel on the US priority 
capture/kill list.  His commander told him he was submitted for 
a “high level medal,” however, it was downgraded because of his 
grade. 

During his deployment to Nairobi, Kenya, he was a SSgt and 
served as a counterintelligence officer at the US Embassy.  He 
was one of two counterintelligence officers who covered over     
224,000 square miles of a remote area known to be inhabited with 
local terrorists’ cells.  He secured information to affect the 
live capture of a member of the Al Qaeda cell and information 
leading to the release of Marines held as prisoners.  His 
supervisor submitted him for a DMSM but told him that he would 
likely be recognized for his accomplishments by AFOSI since they 
had a better understanding of his work.  After the medal was 
downgraded, his deployed commander inquired as to the reason and 
was told it was because of his grade and that the AFAM was 
commensurate with his rank regardless of the merit or actions.  

He understands the Board affords great deference to decisions of 
commanders but submits evidence that the decisions of his 
command regarding his decorations were arbitrary, capricious and 
unjust.  AFOSI did not award decorations based on achievement 
but based on rank.  He only felt free to petition for 
reconsideration after he left active duty.  He requests the 
Board look at the merit of his actions, the justification 
provided, the narrative of the decorations and documents 
submitted which substantiate he deserves a BSM and DMSM.

In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; decoration citations, AF Forms 77, Letter of Evaluation; 
AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSgt); AF 
Forms 1206, Nomination for Award; letters of support and various 
other documents associated with his requests.   

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Nov 1998, the applicant entered active duty.

According to Special Orders G-0620, dated 6 Dec 2006; and      
G-12506, dated 18 Mar 2008; he was awarded AFAMs for outstanding 
achievement for inclusive dates of 12 May 2005 to 7 Nov 2005 and 
24 Jan 2007 to 27 Jul 2007, respectively.  

On 14 Dec 2012, he was honorably discharged.

He served 14 years and 21 days on active duty.

The BSM is awarded to any person who after 6 Dec 1941, while 
serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces of the United 
States, distinguishes himself or herself by heroic or 
meritorious achievement or service, not involving participating 
in aerial flight, under any of the following circumstances:  
while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United 
States, while engaged in military operations involving conflict 
with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly 
foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing 
armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent 
party.

The DMSM is awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense to 
any active duty member of the United States Armed Forces who, 
after 3 Nov 1977, while serving in a joint activity 
distinguishes himself or herself by noncombat meritorious 
achievement or service.  The meritorious service is generally 
for a period of time greater than 12 months and encompassing an 
individual’s entire joint assignment, including any extensions.  
The required achievement or service, while of a lesser degree 
than that required for award of the Defense Superior Service 
medal, must have been accomplished with distinction.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  

In regards to the upgrade for a BSM, the applicant was submitted 
for an AFAM according to the original approval authority.  
Although the applicant’s former superintendent contends he 
should have been awarded the BSM for his actions, available 
documentation shows that the applicant was submitted for an 
AFAM.  To ensure consistency of decorations from combat 
operations, Air Force approval/recommending authority was 
designated to the Commander United States Central Command Air 
Forces for Air Force awards presented solely for actions during 
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and 
associated operations.  Therefore, if the applicant wishes to 
pursue upgrade, he will need to exhaust his administrative means 
by appealing to Air Forces Central Command.  There is no 
evidence of an error as the applicant received the decoration he 
was submitted for.  

In regards to the upgrade for a DMSM, insufficient evidence has 
been presented to verify the applicant was recommended and 
submitted for a DMSM and the award was downgraded.  The 
applicant provided the original DMSM recommendation package 
dated 18 Aug 2010; however, it is for a deployment to 
Afghanistan in 2010; therefore, it does not support his claim 
that his AFAM, Second Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, awarded for his 
deployment to Kenya in 2007 was downgraded from the DMSM.  
Should he wish to pursue upgrade, he will need to appeal to the 
Department of Defense (DOD) for relief.    

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The DPSID memorandum states he did not exhaust all available 
remedies; however he is not aware of any other options to 
petition for an upgrade.

He attempted to request reconsideration through his chain of 
command but his request was verbally denied and met with overt 
hostility.  In fact, requesting further reconsideration would 
have been viewed as undermining his chain of command and career 
suicide.

He is unable to provide copies of the decorations submitted as 
he was not provided copies nor was it standard practice in AFOSI 
that members were made aware of draft decorations.  His former 
commander while deployed to Iraq informed him that he had 
submitted him for a higher decoration and feared his career 
would suffer if he requested reconsideration from AFOSI.  He 
requests the Board consider his accomplishments while deployed 
to the Iraqi theater.  

Despite the fact that his team leader submitted him for a DMSM, 
AFOSI, who did not have first-hand knowledge of his actions 
ensured all decorations were equal according to rank and rank 
alone.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed. 

2.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  While the 
applicant’s assertions are noted, he has not provided 
substantiated evidence of actions on his part to obtain the 
relief he seeks through the proper administrative channels such 
as US Air Forces Central Command or the DOD.  In this respect, 
we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal 
within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust 
all available avenues of administrative relief provided by 
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this 
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  The 
Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this 
application and indicated there is an available avenue of 
administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued.  In 
view of this, we find this application is not ripe for 
adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate level 
of appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view 
of the above, 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 that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Until such time 
as he has exhausted all available administrative relief, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief requested.  

________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-01781 in Executive Session on 4 Mar 2014 and     
5 Mar 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

 	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member
      

The following documentary evidence was considered:    

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 2013, w/atchs.  
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Aug 2013.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 2013.  
     Exhibit D.  Rebuttal, Applicant, undated, w/atch.  




                                    
                                   Panel Chair