RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01904
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) as an end-
of-tour medal.

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An end of tour medal was not submitted by his supervisor in a 
timely fashion.  

He attempted to correct the discrepancy by submitting a 
recommendation through his former unit.  It was rejected at the 
group level because it was not submitted by his immediate 
supervisor who wrote his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs).  
His supervisor could not be reached and he has since separated 
from the military.

He served five years of excellent service from 2 Jan 02 to 29 
Nov 06.  He received Honor Guard Guardsman of the Year in 2003 
and Drill Team Member of the Year in 2006.  Additionally, he was 
presented with over 300 coins for superior performance and all 
five of his annual EPRs were rated at the highest rating 
possible.

He followed the instructions for submitting retroactive 
recommendations for awards as stated by the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) of 1996, by contacting his Congressman 
so that he could contact the Secretary of the Air Force on his 
behalf.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of a response from his Congressman, SAF/LL, a 
letter of recommendation, his EPRs, a proposed citation, photos 
showing the various awards and coins he has received.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Air 
Force.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air 
Force which are included at Exhibits B and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states that the original 
approving authority researched the issue and concluded that 
there was no evidence that the applicant’s unit ever submitted a 
decoration through squadron channels to the Mission Support 
Group.  

The applicant contends that he attempted to correct the 
discrepancy by submitting a recommendation through his former 
unit, but it was rejected.  However, no official documentation 
was submitted to reflect the rejection.

The applicant provided a recommendation from Lt Col A., former 
16th Logistics Readiness Squadron Commander, retired, for the 
AFCM for outstanding achievement from 2 Jan 02 to 29 Nov 06, a 
proposed citation, and congressional interest from his 
congressman.

The original approval authority, the 1st Special Operations Wing 
Commander, provided a memorandum for the record stating that the 
applicant left Hurlburt Field in Nov 06, and waited nearly six 
years to submit an application to the Air Force Board for 
Correction of Military Records.  The commander further stated 
that there is no evidence that an end of tour decoration was 
submitted by the applicant’s chain of command and “unless he can 
provide creditable evidence that criteria in AFI 36-2803, Air 
Force Awards and Decorations Program paragraph 3.3.1 applies, he 
is unable to grant an award.” 

In accordance with AFI 36-2803, paragraph 2.2.6, no individual 
is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an 
operational temporary duty or departure from an assignment.  In 
addition, 3.1, states to submit recommendations as soon as 
possible following the act, achievement, or service.  Enter each 
recommendation (except the Purple Heart) into official channels 
within 2 years and award within 3 years of the act, achievement, 
or service performed. NOTE: A recommendation is placed in 
official channels when the recommending official signs the 
recommendation (DECOR6 and justification) and a higher official 
in the chain of command endorses it.  3.1.1, states you may 
resubmit recommendations that were placed into official channels 
within the prescribed time limits, but no award was made because 
the recommendation was lost or was not processed or acted on due 
to administrative error. Reconsideration is contingent on the 
presentation of credible evidence that the recommendation was 
officially placed in military channels or was submitted, but not 
acted on through loss or inadvertence. Process the 
recommendation following the original channels. NOTE: When 
organizations no longer exist, process the recommendation 
through the replacement organizations.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 May 13, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  
As of this date, this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) 
recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant does not 
provide documentary evidence that an award was submitted by his 
former unit.  Absent a copy of the “rejected” submission or a 
statement from the squadron commander at the time of his 
Permanent Change of Station (PCS), the Air Force Decorations 
Board cannot validate that an error in processing occurred.  The 
lack of an award at the time of PCS does not necessarily 
constitute an error or injustice.  As stated in the governing 
instruction, AFI 36-2803, paragraph 2.2.6., “no individual is 
automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an 
operational TDY or departure for an assignment.

The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He believes that an injustice has occurred.  When a unit submits 
a member for an award or a decoration, they do not keep the 
member in the loop on what is going on and the member is not 
courtesy copied on any correspondence.  If the member is 
“rejected,” he/she is not notified.  The only way to find out is 
to inquire about it.  He had already PCS’d four years when the 
process was started by people who did not know him.  Getting any 
information from them over the phone was hard enough; to get 
something in writing would be on the verge of impossible.

He was unable to get a response from the commander at the time 
of his PCS.

He understands that “no individual is automatically entitled to 
an award upon completion of an operational TDY or departure for 
an assignment.”  He demonstrated superior performance for five 
years while stationed at Hurlburt Field AFB, FL.

He received several medals, to include one for an act of courage 
and outstanding achievement during his current assignment.  He 
achieved the rank of master sergeant in 10 years (six years 
ahead of the Air Force average).

Not having an end-of-tour medal will raise red flags when he is 
considered by the senior master sergeant board next year and 
could damage his career. 

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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.  The 
applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation is noted; 
however, we do not find it sufficiently persuasive to overcome 
the rationale provided by the Air Force Offices of Primary 
Responsibility (OPRs).  Therefore, we agree with the opinions 
and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
Should the applicant provide supporting documentation from his 
former commander we would be willing to reconsider his request.  
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

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-2012-01904 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 30 Apr 13.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 7 Oct 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 9 Oct 13.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 13.




						Panel Chair