RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05161
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, be corrected to reflect the Air Force Achievement Medal.
His promotion letter be corrected to reflect his last name.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Air Force Achievement Medal is not listed on his DD Form
214. The award letter, announcing his promotion to senior
airman, is incorrectly addressed to another airman.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Force who served from
10 April 1996 through 9 July 2000. He was honorably discharged
and credited with 4 years and 3 months of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C
and D.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the Air Force Achievement Medal.
After a thorough review of the applicants official military
personnel record, no official documentation could be located
verifying the applicant was awarded or recommended for the Air
Force Achievement Medal.
The Air Force Achievement Medal was authorized by the Secretary
of the Air Force on 12 October 1980 and is awarded to members of
the Armed Forces of the United States and foreign military
personnel, below the rank of colonel, after 30 September 1981
who while serving in any capacity with the United States Air
Force, distinguish themselves by meritorious service or
outstanding achievement.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOE does not make a recommendation. The applicant
requests the congratulatory letter for his promotion to senior
airman dated, 29 March 1999, be corrected to reflect his name in
the salutation. This is not an official document maintained in
the applicants master personnel file. It appears the letter
was mass produced for all of the promotion selectees and the
applicants name was overlooked in the salutation; however, his
name is listed correctly in the address block. The applicant
may contact the squadron and or first sergeant for resolution.
It should be noted that he has waited over 16 years to address
the issue and those personnel may no longer be available.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 9 April 2015 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 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 an error or injustice with regard
to the applicants request to correct his DD Form 214 to reflect
the Air Force Achievement Medal. We took notice of the
applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the
case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of
the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt
its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has
not been the victim of an error of injustice. The applicant has
also requested we correct the salutation of a congratulatory
promotion letter; however, this request falls outside the
purview of this Board. The applicant may wish to contact the
agency of record for assistance in resolving this matter.
Therefore, there is no basis for the Board to take action on
this portion of the applicants request. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting
the requested relief.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-05161 in Executive Session on 13 May 2015 under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DSID, dated 24 Mar 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Apr 15.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00478
Her DD Form 214 reflects her entitlement to the National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Training Ribbon, and the AFOR-Long Tour (AFOR-LT). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to change her rank and pay grade reflected on her DD Form 214. The ribbon was authorized to be awarded to Air Force and Air Force Reserve members credited with completion of an overseas tour on or after 1 Sep 80.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01165
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to have his BSM used for supplemental promotion consideration to E-9 for promotion cycle 10E9. The applicant provides no documentation reflecting that he attempted to have the MSM upgraded anytime between its original award date in...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05779
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05779 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to change his grade to SSgt on his DD...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03194
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C and D. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating the special order officially authorizing him award of the AFAM has not been provided or located within his official military record. The AFAM was no longer reflected in the promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01430
The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because not correcting his record affects his DVA treatment. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIRP recommends denial of the applicants request to change his service number. The complete DPSIRP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 December 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01397
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01397 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was discharged in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt), rather than senior airman (SrA); and that he was entitled to the Purple Heart, Bronze Star Medal with Valor (BSM w/V), Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04045
His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from his record. JAJM states the applicant does not allege an error in how the Article 15 was processed. We note the applicant alleges that the nonjudicial punishment he received in December 2010 was unfair in that, as an alleged unintended consequence, it rendered him ineligible to test for promotion to the next rank before he was otherwise required to separate from active service.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01655
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR/UIF/demotion action as served to the applicant, they conclude that its mention on the contested report was proper and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02146
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the contested EPR. He believes the additional information he provides will show how the nuclear weapons incident on 30 Aug 07 itself solely led to his lower rating in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03312
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID does not make a recommendation as to whether or not the applicants actions constitute extraordinary heroism, but defers to SAF/MRBP. Recommend the applicants request be denied since the AmM would...