RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03547
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC).
2. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty (issued in 2012), be corrected to properly reflect all
data related to his military service, as described in the original
DD Form 214 he lost (issued in 1997).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. He is missing a fifth MSM (also stated, MSM with four OLCs)
from his official record.
2. At some point after his retirement in 1997, he lost his
DD Form 214 and requested a duplicate copy. In July, 2012, his DD
Form 214 was recreated and reissued with numerous errors and/or
void of any information in multiple areas. The applicant has
since found his original DD Form 214; however, this version had
become void due to the new form being reissued in 2012.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 Jul 12, AFPC/DPSOR issued the applicant a reconstructed DD
Form 214 which reflects that he served honorably in the Regular
Air Force from 21 Jan 75 to 31 Jan 97, retired, effective 1 Feb
97, and was credited with 22 years and 10 days of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C
and D.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to be
credited with the MSM (4OLC), indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. A thorough review of the applicant's
official military personnel record revealed that the applicants
records only contain four MSMs, the basic award and three bronze
oak leaf clusters. There is no official documentation, such as
the special order or recommendation, in the applicant's record,
nor was any provided by the applicant, to verify he was
recommended for or awarded a fifth MSM.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends granting relief to correct the
administrative errors on the reissued DD Form 214, indicating
there is evidence of an error or injustice. AFPC/DPSOR is
prepared to reissue the DD Form 214 to reflect the same data as
originally reflected on the document in 1997, to the maximum
extent the current Aug 2009 format and governing directives will
allow.
With regards to the request for a fourth OLC on the MSM,
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. Per AFPC/DPSIDs recommendation,
decorations will be corrected as listed on the previous document
(1997 DD Form 214), with the fourth bronze OLC omitted.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 2 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
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 an error or injustice warranting
correction of the applicants records to reflect his entitlement
to the MSM (4 OLC). We took notice of the applicant's complete
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSID and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice with respect to his
request for the MSM (4OLC). As for his remaining request, we note
that AFPC/DPSOR has determined the applicants DD Form 214 should
be corrected to reflect his 1997 service data and will correct his
records administratively. Therefore, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting relief
beyond that rendered administratively.
4. The applicants 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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2013-03547 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Oct 13.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Mar 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01297
On 30 Dec 12, the applicant resigned from active duty due to completion of required active service and transferred to the Alabama Air National Guard to complete her military service obligation. On 9 Jan 13, she signed AF IMT 133, Oath of Office (Military Personnel) and NGB Form 337, Oaths of Office. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that AF IMT 133, Oath of Office (Military Personnel),...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00276
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force which are attached at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. While the applicant’s records contain documentation indicating that he was awarded the MSM twice (basic award and first OLC), the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04944
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04944 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect award of the appropriate medals and boots on the ground for his service in Honduras and in support of Operation ELDORADO CANYON in Sicily. He was credited with four years of active duty service, including...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00477
He was considered and not selected for promotion by the CY04C Col Board that convened on 6 December 2004. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03654
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03654 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBP recommends upgrading the AM, 5 OLC, to the DFC. We note DPSIDs recommendation to deny...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02588
At the request of Colonel S---, the order awarding him the MSM was revoked in order to recommend him for award of the Legion of Merit (LOM). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that DPPPR suggests that HQ PACAF could address his request, then in the same paragraph states that he could not now be recommended for a decoration because of time limitations. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Oct 02,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00187
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00187 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Meritorious Service Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM) (1OLC)), that he was awarded for the period 25 Apr 00 to 1 Apr 03, be included in his officer selection record (OSR) for the Calendar Year 2003A (CY03A) Lieutenant...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02607
On 14 Nov 14, SAF/MRBR sent a letter to the applicant, advising him he had not exhausted other administrative avenues prior to requesting relief from the AFBCMR. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE finds no error or injustice in the applicants record in regards to the applicants request for the AM (4OLC 8OLC) to be retroactively applied to his promotion consideration. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Dec 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00740
The complete DPALL evaluations, dated 15 May 2013 and 27 March 2013, are at Exhibits C and D. AFPC/DPSID defers to the Air Force Decoration Board on whether the applicants actions merit award of the MSM, 2 OLC. f. Providing his corrected record, to include the PRF reflecting an overall promotion recommendation of DP, promotion consideration by an SSB for the CY10A Lt Col CSB. d. He be awarded the MSM, 2 OLC, for meritorious service during the period from 25 November 2008 to 30 November...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05081
The applicant is under the misconception that as long as the decoration into administrative channels prior to the promotion cutoff date, the approved decorations would be used in the promotion process for that cycle. As such, decorations and promotions are separate processes. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence submitted in support of his appeal, we believe that credible evidence has been provided to show that his six Air Medals (2OLC/3OLC/4OLC/5OLC/6OLC and 7/OLC) were placed into...