DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-04456 
COUNSEL:   
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
Her records be corrected to show she was awarded the Air Force 
Commendation Medal (AFCM) for permanent change of station (PCS) 
in June 2009.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
In a seven page brief the applicant, through counsel, makes the 
following contentions: 
 
  a.  She  was  unfairly  targeted  for  retaliation  by  a  higher 
ranking officer and given a negative enlisted performance report 
(EPR)  which  has  unjustly  impacted  her  career  and  prevented  her 
from  being  recommended  and  acknowledged  for  her  significant 
accomplishments during her tour of service at Andersen Air Base 
(AB), Guam.   
 
  b.  For  the  period  16  June  2007  through  1  June  2008,  she 
exemplified stupendous leadership in her duties and performed at 
an  above  average  level.    Her  efforts  were  acknowledged  and 
documented  in  her  enlisted  performance  report  closed  in  early 
2008, and rated her “truly among the best (5).”   
 
  c.  She  was  a  key  participant  in  base  and  community  projects 
and  received  letters  of  appreciation  and  garnered  national 
recognition  in  the  Air  Force  print  news  for  spearheading  and 
raising over $4,500 for a Sexual Assault & Abuse Resource Center 
Association (SAARCA) fundraiser.   
 
  d.  In  contrast  to  her  earlier  EPR,  she  received  a  negative 
EPR in March 2009 for the time period ending 31 December 2008.  
The report ranked her as average or below average.  She filed an 
appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under 
the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted 
Evaluation Reports, to request the EPR be voided from her record 
on the grounds that the raters of her EPR had violated Air Force 
instructions  and  retaliated  against  her  on  several  separate 
occasions  for  her  use  of  the  chain  of  command.    The  ERAB 
considered and approved the request and removed the report from 
her record effective 13 April 2010.   

 
  e.  With  the  removal  of  the  report  from  her  record,  she 
contacted  her  previous  unit  and  requested  consideration  for 
award  of  the  AFCM.    Although  her  email  correspondences  were 
never  acknowledged,  she  was  informed  by  the  military  personnel 
flight  superintendent,  via  telephone,  that  she  would  receive  a 
response  to  her  request  soon.    After  a  ninety-day  delay  she 
appealed  to  the  force  support  squadron  commander.    Her  appeal 
was denied.  She has appealed the denial, but has not received 
relief. 
 
In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her 
counsel’s brief with related support documents.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  currently  serving  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in 
the grade of Technical Sergeant, E-6.   
 
On  29  November  2010,  the  applicant  submitted  a  request  for 
correction of her records to the Air Force Board for Corrections 
of Military Records (AFBCMR).  She requested, through counsel, a 
recommendation for award of the AFCM for meritorious service for 
PCS  from  her  assignment  at  Andersen  AB.    In  response  to  her 
request  for  entitlement  to  the  AFCM,  AFPC/DPSIDR,  by  letter 
dated  5 January  2010;  (Exhibit  C),  advised  the  applicant  that 
after  careful  review  of  her  claim  they  were  returning  her 
application without further action.  They further advised, that 
before  submitting  a  DD  Form  149  requesting  a  change  to  her 
military  record,  the  applicant  must  go  back  to  the  original 
approval authority of the AFCM and request administrative relief 
in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2803,  The  Air  Force  Awards  and 
Decorations Program, paragraphs, 1.5, 1.7, 3.3.8, and 3.4.2.   
 
The  applicant  must  exhaust  administrative  channels  for 
reconsideration of the AFCM before utilizing the AFBCMR process.  
Once  a  decision  has  been  rendered  by  the  decoration  approval 
authority and the applicant believed an injustice still existed, 
they  requested  that  she  resubmit  a  DD  Form  149,  with  the 
approval authority’s final decision, through the AFBCMR process.  
The  applicant’s  appeal  for  administrative  relief,  to  the 
original  AFCM  approval  authority,  was  denied  by  letter  dated 
2 June 2011. 
 
On  11  January  2011,  the  applicant’s  AFBCMR  case  was 
administratively closed for lack of records to substantiate her 
request.    She  resubmitted  a  DD  Form  149,  with  the  approval 
authority’s  final  decision,  through  the  AFBCMR  process  on 
9 May 2012.   

 

 

 
Regarding  the  applicant’s  contention  that  she  was  unfairly 
targeted for retaliation by a higher-ranking officer and given a 
negative  EPR;  an  inquiry  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  IG 
(SAF/IG)  revealed  that  the  applicant  has  two  IG  complaints  on 
file but neither complaint is specific to this case.   
 
On 15 July 2010, the applicant, through counsel, submitted an IG 
complaint  to  the  12AF/IG.    The  applicant  alleged  that  she  was 
given  a  letter  of  counseling  that  resulted  in  the  denial  of 
award  of  a  permanent  change  of  station  (PCS),  end  of  tour, 
decoration for her assignment at Soto Cano AB, Honduras.  During 
the complaint clarification interview, the applicant was advised 
that  the  IG  would  not  consult  with  her  attorney  during  the 
complaint  analysis  process.    They  advised  her  that  she  could 
communicate  with  her  attorney  during  the  process;  however,  the 
IG  would  only  communicate  directly  with  her  concerning  the 
matters  in  her  complaint.    Subsequent  to  the  conversation,  the 
applicant  called  and  made  a  request  to  withdraw  her  complaint.  
The  applicant  followed  up  her  verbal  request  with  an  email 
request.   
 
On  or  about  13  August  2010,  the  applicant  filed  a  complaint 
through  the  DoD/IG  Hotline,  alleging  reprisal  for  the  same 
reasons cited in her original complaint to the 12AF/IG.  The DoD 
Office  of  the  Inspector  General,  Directorate  for  Military 
Reprisal 
of 
whistleblower  reprisal  and  determined  the  allegations  did  not 
meet the criteria for consideration under the applicable statute 
or  DoD  Directive.    Therefore,  the  applicant’s  complaint  was 
transferred to the 12AF/IG for review and resolution.   
 
The  12AF/IG  conducted  a  thorough  complaint  analysis  and 
determined  that  the  issues  addressed  in  the  applicant’s 
complaint were command issues that were not appropriate for the 
IG  complaints  resolution  program.    Therefore,  the  applicant’s 
complaint  was  referred  to  the  612TOG/CC  for  review  and 
resolution.    The  final  conclusion  after  the  informal  inquiry 
was;  the  applicant’s  duty  performance,  in  the  eyes  of  her 
superiors, did not warrant award of a decoration.  In accordance 
with  the  AFI,  that  was  clearly  within  their  purview. 
Additionally,  the  applicant  was  not  the  only  individual  not 
recommended for a decoration.  Therefore, the applicant was not 
entitled to a decoration following her tour at Soto Cano AB.   
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIDR  recommends  denial.    DPSIDR  states  they  were  unable 
to  locate  a  recommendation  or  citation  for  the  proposed 
decoration in the applicant’s military personnel record and none 
was provided.  AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations 
Program, paragraph 2.2.6, states “no individual is automatically 
entitled  to  an  award  upon  completion  of  an  operational  TDY  or 

Investigations, 

allegations 

reviewed 

the 

 

 

departure  for  an  assignment.”    The  applicant  provided,  as 
evidence, a letter of recommendation from her supervisor, dated 
1  November  2009,  covering  the  period  from  8  July  2009  through 
14 October  2009.    This  period  of  service  is  not  within  the 
inclusive  dates  of  her  requested  AFCM  from  June  2007  through 
June  2009.    The  applicant  has  exhausted  her  administrative 
channels  for  relief  through  her  appeal  to  the  force  support 
squadron commander.   
 
The AFCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States  who,  while  serving  in  any  capacity  with  the  Air  Force 
after  24  March  1958,  shall  have  distinguished  themselves  by 
meritorious  achievement  and  service.    The  degree  of  merit  must 
be distinctive, though it need not be unique.  
 
The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
In their response, counsel and applicant indicate they disagree 
with  the  conclusion  made  in  the  advisory  opinion.    In  addition 
to  reiterating  previous  contentions,  they  additionally  contend 
that: 
 
a.  AFI  36-2803,  paragraphs  2.2.2  and  2.2.3.,  provide  that; 
recommendations  for  Air  Force  awards  are  to  be  based  on 
recognizing  meritorious  service  and  outstanding  achievements 
that “clearly place individuals above his or her peers” and that 
award  recommendations  are  to  be  based  “on  specific  projects, 
plans  programs,  or  actions  which  are  or  will  be  beneficial  to 
the  Air  Force.”    In  his  letter  dated  2  June  2011,  the  force 
support squadron commander remarked that he had only served with 
the  applicant  for  two  months,  that  he  only  had  a  “partial 
picture”  to  form  his  recommendation,  that  he  did  not  have 
possession  of  her  unit  personnel  information,  and  that  he  only 
had  one  favorable  EPR  to  base  his  decision  on.    Therefore  he 
declined to recommend the applicant for a PCS award. 
 
b.  The  force  support  squadron  commander  patently  denied  the 
applicant  fair  consideration  of  an  award  by  merely  “rubber-
stamping”  the  decision  by  the  subordinate  chain  of  command  not 
to recommend her for an AFCM upon PCS.  Although the applicant 
readily recognizes that “no individual is automatically entitled 
to  an  award  upon  completion  of  an  operational  TDY  or  departure 
for  an 
supporting 
documentation provided him adequate information to base an AFCM 
award.   
 
c.  The applicant’s individual achievements during her tour at 
Andersen  AB  significantly  enhanced  and  were  beneficial  to  the 
unit, the Air Force mission and the local community.   
 

assignment,” 

the 

the 

remainder 

of 

 

 

For  the  reasons  set  forth,  they  respectfully  request  that  the 
applicant  be  recommended  to  receive  the  Air  Force  Commendation 
Medal  in  light  of  her  permanent  change  of  station  and  service 
while stationed at Andersen AB.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  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.    We  took 
careful notice of the applicant’s complete submission in support 
of  her  request  and  we  are  not  persuaded  that  she  should  be 
awarded  the  AFCM.    Her  contentions  in  this  regard  are  duly 
noted; however, in our opinion, the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility has adequately addressed these contentions and we 
are in agreement with their recommendation.  While the applicant 
may  believe  she  is  deserving  of  the  AFCM,  sufficient  evidence 
has not been provided which would persuade us that the commander 
acted  inappropriately  in  deciding  not  to  award  her  the  AFCM  or 
that  his  decision  represented  an  abuse  of  discretionary 
authority in making that decision.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 
 
4.  The applicant alleges she has been the victim of a reprisal.  
By  policy,  reprisal  complaints  must  be  filed  within  60  days  of 
the  alleged  incident  or  discovery  to  facilitate  the  IG’s 
investigation.  As mentioned above, we note the applicant filed 
two  IG  complaints;  however,  the  available  record  does  not 
substantiate  that  either  of  the  complaints  filed  alleged 
reprisal and it appears no investigation for reprisal was done.  
Nevertheless,  we  reviewed  the  evidence  of  record  to  reach  our 
own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred under 
the provisions of 10 USC § 1034.  Based on our review, we do not 
conclude  the  applicant  has  been  the  victim  of  reprisal.    The 
applicant  has  not  established  that  she  ever  made  a  protected 
communication  and  the  non-recommendation  for  award  of  the  AFCM 
or  other  actions  were  rendered  in  retaliation  to  making  a 
protected  communication.    Therefore,  the  Board  does  not  find 
that the applicant has been the victim of reprisal.  Therefore, 
in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board 
does not find that the applicant has been the victim of reprisal 
pursuant to Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1034.   
 

 

 

5.  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(s) 
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  this  application 
in  Executive  Session  on  15  February  2013,  under  the  provisions 
of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2010-04456: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  IG Case File Worksheets (withdrawn). 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 26 June 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 July 2012. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 23 August 2012. 
 
 
 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

                                                                   
Panel Chair