RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02607

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Medals (AM), fourth bronze oak leaf cluster through eighth 
bronze oak leaf cluster (4OLC to 8OLC) be awarded and applied 
retroactively to his promotion cycle (13E6) to technical sergeant 
(E-6).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to high operations tempo, there was lack of continuity in the 
processing of his AMs.  Because the medals were not properly 
awarded, he missed a promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) and 
continues to be at a disadvantage with his peers.  After years of 
his own due diligence, and much frustration, he has collected all 
the proper documentation but, again, the medals have been lost.  
He has exhausted all efforts to use the proper processes because 
they continue to result in his documentation becoming lost in the 
system.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a member of the Regular Air Force, currently 
serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 4 Dec 07, the applicant was awarded his most recent AM (3 OLC), 
for inclusive dates of 5 Aug 05 to 17 Jan 06.

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.

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/DPSID recommends denial of the AM (4OLC – 8OLC), indicating 
there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The AM may be 
awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the 
United States Armed Forces, subsequent to 8 Sep 39, distinguishes 
himself or herself by meritorious achievement while participating 
in an aerial flight.  The AM may be awarded for combat or non-
combat action in recognition of single acts of valor, heroism, or 
merit while participating in aerial flight.  Additionally, it may 
be conferred for sustained meritorious achievement (distinction) 
in the performance of duties involving aerial flight.

The original award approval authority, United States Air Forces 
Central Command (USCENTAF), was contacted in regard to the 
applicant's request for his AM (4OLC – 8OLC) package.  They 
advised the last package they received on the applicant was for 
his AM (3OLC) which was approved.  With regards to the applicant’s 
request for the AM (4OLC – 8OLC), it is noted the applicant 
provided the proposed citations, in addition to eleven pages of 
his Individual Flight Record Reports and a TEMPO Management and 
Tracking System Individual Data, as well as an AM and Aerial 
Achievement Medal (AAM) Mission Information Justification Sheet 
(USCENTAF Form 1) for justification.  However, all four of the 
USCENTAF Form 1s are signed only by the applicant.  According to 
USCENTAF, he has an incomplete package without a signature from 
the Operations Officer or Squadron Commander, and the Group 
Commander.  Once the applicant has the USCENTAF Form l’s signed by 
the appropriate individuals, he can resubmit his request for 
consideration.

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

AFPC/DPSOE finds no error or injustice in the applicant’s record 
in regards to the applicant’s request for the AM (4OLC – 8OLC) to 
be retroactively applied to his promotion consideration.  The 
applicant was a non-select for promotion to technical sergeant (E-
6) during the 13E6 cycle.  At that time, he received a score of 12 
points for decorations [for his previously approved AM, w/3OLC].  
AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, dictates that before a 
decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close 
out date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion 
eligibility date, and the date of the request for decoration, must 
be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.  If 
the award recommendations are approved by the appropriate 
individuals, this would not entitle the applicant to supplemental 
promotion consideration because the correction was not made prior 
to the promotion selection date of 16 Jul 13.
?
Exceptions to the above policy are only considered when the airman 
can support a previous submission with documentation or statements 
including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was 
officially placed in military channels within the prescribed time 
limit and conclusive evidence the recommendation was not acted 
upon through loss or inadvertence.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes the position of OPR and argues he has gone 
above and beyond what should be required of an individual, when 
the AFCENT process of processing decorations is obviously broken.  
He has diligently obtained the requested mission information in 
accordance with AFCENT guidance and continues to make no progress 
through the proper channels at his base, Air Force Special 
Operations Command, his career field manager, and AFCENT.  He 
refers back to his former commander’s letter, acknowledging the 
awards requested should have been approved.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not 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.  In this respect, 
we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal 
within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust 
all available avenues of administrative relief provided by 
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this 
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  The 
Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this 
application and indicated there is an available avenue of 
administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued.  In 
view of this, we find this application is not ripe for 
adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of 
appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of 
the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.


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-2014-02607 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Aug 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Oct 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Nov 14.
Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Dec 14.