RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01068
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The “Given Under My Hand” dates on his five Air Medals (AM) be corrected as follows:  

	a.  AM (First Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC)):  11 Dec 08, instead of 8 Nov 12.

	b.  AM (Second OLC):  22 Jan 09, instead of 8 Nov 12.

	c.  AM (Third OLC):  21 Aug 09, instead of 8 Nov 12.

	c.  AM (Fourth OLC):  12 Apr 10, instead of 8 Nov 12.

	d.  AM (Fifth OLC):  23 May 10, instead of 8 Nov 12.

2.  His corrected record receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the calendar year 2011 (CY11D) Major Central Selection Board (CSB).

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His five AMs should have been awarded between 2008 and 2010; however, due to conflicting policies at the time between United States Air Force Central Command (USAFCENT) and his squadron, the submissions were repeatedly erroneously rejected, causing the AMs to be approved much later than they would have been.  As a result, these decorations were not a matter of record when he was considered for promotion and his corrected record should receive SSB consideration.

________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he commenced his service in the Regular Air Force on 15 Jun 03.

On 8 Nov 12, the applicant was awarded the following decorations for the inclusive periods indicated:

	a.  AM (First OLC), per USAFCENT Special Order G-04162, for the period 11 Sep 06 to 11 Dec 07.

	b.  AM (Second OLC), per USAFCENT Special Order G-04163, for the period 18 Dec 07 to 22 Jan 08.

	c.  AM (Third OLC), per USAFCENT Special Order G-04164, for the period 23 Jan 08 to 21 Aug 08.

	d.  AM (Fourth OLC), per USAFCENT Special Order G-04165, for the period 23 Aug 08 to 12 Apr 09.

	e.  AM (Fifth OLC), per USAFCENT Special Order G-04166, for inclusive period 15 Apr 09 to 23 May 09, with a Given Under My Hand date of 8 Nov 12.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) which are attached at Exhibits C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the “Given Under My Hand” dates for his five Air Medals, indicating the requests for the awards were processed in a timely manner and the dates accurately reflect when the decorations were approved; therefore, there is no error or injustice.  

The applicant provided a signed memorandum from the Commander, 12th Flying Training Wing (12 FTW) indicating that he has been retroactively awarded five AMs by USAFCENT for his support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM.  The applicant submitted documentation for his first two AMs in 2008, well within the current policy timeframe, which only allowed for combat sorties flown within a year’s time.  He had seven remaining combat sorties from a previous deployment that he tried to gain credit for in his original submission; however, the recommendation was rejected by the deployed decorations office because the seven sorties were outside of the unit-imposed submission timeline.  He submitted a new AM package using only sorties within the unit-driven submission timeline but the recommendation was rejected by USAFCENT as a result of not accounting for the seven eligible sorties from his previous deployment.  The applicant re-submitted his AM package with all five AMs, which were ultimately approved by USAFCENT.  The Commander fully supports updating the applicant’s records to reflect the five AMs.  

However, AFPC/DPSID was unable to verify an error or injustice in regard to the “Given Under My Hand” dates.  USAFCENT received the applicant’s submission on 24 Aug 12 and the dates accurately reflect when they were approved.  USAFCENT indicated they have no record of the applicant’s package being previously rejected by their office. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration since there were no corrections made to the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR).  

The applicant was not selected for promotion to the grade of major in-the-promotion zone by the P0411D Major CSB; however, he was selected for promotion (above-the-promotion zone) by the P0412C Major CSB.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

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 Board took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, a majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the AFPC/DPSIDR and adopts its rationale as the basis for the majority’s conclusion the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  While the majority notes the supporting statement from the applicant’s commander indicating there were administrative delays in processing the applicant’s award recommendations, the majority is not convinced the applicant exercised due diligence in pursuit of the awards.  In this respect, the majority notes that the recommendations for decorations should be submitted within two years of the act, achievement, or service performed and awarded within three years.  Additionally, the majority also notes the applicant’s recommendations were submitted well outside the timeframe and it appears as if he waited until he was non-selected for promotion to pursue these awards.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of an error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01068 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                        , Panel Chair
	                        , Member
	                        , Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. XXXXX voted to correct the records and has submitted a minority report, which is attached at Exhibit F.  The following documentary evidence for was considered:

	 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 13, w/atchs.
	 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 May 13.
	 Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 7 Jun 13.
	 Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 13.
	 Exhibit F.  Minority Report, dated 29 Jan 14.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair







DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC



Office of the Assistant Secretary


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                                        CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Application of                                         

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of an error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                                                           
                                                                           Director
                                                                           Air Force Review Boards Agency