RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		  DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05824
                                  COUNSEL:  NONE
	  			  HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM).  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to his 1 Jan 13 retirement, his unit contacted the 10th 
AF/CCE for guidance for processing a LOM for him.  His wing 
commander approved the request but the 10th AF/CCE denied it 
because he was a squadron commander.  In Accordance With (IAW) 
AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, Table 
1.1, Note 5, this guidance was incorrect.

The LOM was signed by the Vice Commander, 10th Air Force. 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a letter for an 
Exception to Policy (ETP) for award of the LOM, AFRC Form 30, 
AFRC Indorsement for Decorations; award recommendation, proposed 
citation and various other documents associated with his 
request.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The LOM may be awarded by the Secretary concerned to members of 
the United States Armed Forces, who after 8 Sep 39, have 
distinguished themselves by exceptionally meritorious conduct in 
the performance of outstanding service.  The performance must 
have been such as to merit recognition of key individuals for 
service rendered in a clearly exceptional manner.  Performance 
of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty, assignment, or 
experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for this 
award.  For service rendered in peacetime, the term “key 
individual” applies to a narrower range of positions than would 
be the case in time of war and requires evidence of significant 
achievement.  In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a 
special requirement or of an extremely difficult duty performed 
in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner.  However, 
justification of the award may accrue by virtue of exceptionally 
meritorious service in a succession of important positions.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  The May 09 award policy and award 
criteria message that was released Air Force wide provides the 
applicable regulation concerning award of the LOM.  IAW Section 
5B, a minimum of 18 months in a qualifying position is required.  
Section 5C states qualifying positions are wing/vice wing 
commanders, group commanders all types, major command directors 
and deputy directors (when the director is a general or flag 
officer), air staff division chiefs, and Air Force Mobility 
Command (AFMC) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) designated 
material wing and group leader positions.  The applicant does 
not meet the criteria outlined in the May 09 award policy and 
criteria message; therefore, an ETP memorandum signed by someone 
within his direct chain of command is required.  The criteria as 
outlined in the May 09 message has also been incorporated into 
the updated AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations 
Program, dated 18 Dec 13.  DPSID believes the applicant should 
be given consideration for a retirement decoration; however, in 
order for his request to be reasonably considered he will need 
to resubmit his request with an ETP memorandum signed by someone 
from his chain of command with first-hand knowledge of the 
act/achievement due to the applicant not meeting the criteria 
for award of the LOM as outlined in AFI 36-2803 and the May 
09 message.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

SAF/MRBP recommends denial and concurs with the DPSID 
recommendation.  Additionally, upon critical and thorough review 
of the narrative, the package did not meet the LOM criteria and 
did not provide adequate justification to overcome the ETP per 
AFI 36-2803, Table 3.1, Notes 1-7.  Though commendable, the 
applicant’s actions as described in the nomination package did 
not reflect “accomplishments in line with performance in an 
extremely difficult duty that is performed in a clearly 
exceptional manner,” as defined in AFI 36-2803, Table 1.1., Note 
7.

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 Apr 14, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D).  As of this date, this office has not received a response. 
 
________________________________________________________________

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 notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error or injustice.  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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05824 in Executive Session on 30 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05824 was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Dec 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Mar 14.    
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 9 Apr 14
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 14.