Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02607
Original file (BC 2014 02607.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
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.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01617

    Original file (BC 2014 01617.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSID was unable to verify an error or injustice exists in regard to the Report of Decoration Printout digital signature date on the applicant’s AM w/2 OLCs or AM w/3 OLCs nor were they able to verify an error or injustice with the AM w/1 OLCs. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s requests to include the decorations in the promotion process for cycle 13E6 as the decorations were not submitted until after selections...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05081

    Original file (BC-2011-05081.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant is under the misconception that as long as the decoration into administrative channels prior to the promotion cutoff date, the approved decorations would be used in the promotion process for that cycle. As such, decorations and promotions are separate processes. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence submitted in support of his appeal, we believe that credible evidence has been provided to show that his six Air Medals (2OLC/3OLC/4OLC/5OLC/6OLC and 7/OLC) were placed into...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02046

    Original file (BC-2003-02046.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502) 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 Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), or in this case the AF Form 3994, must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05097

    Original file (BC 2012 05097.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his argument that he would have been selected for promotion to master sergeant if credited with the Air Medal. As for the applicant’s request that he be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), in view of the fact that we have determined there is no basis to recommend granting the AM, we find...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03194

    Original file (BC 2013 03194.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 03240

    Original file (BC 2014 03240.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends granting relief to change the RDP date and Given Under Hand date of the applicant’s 14 Nov 13 AFCM, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice. It is recommended the Board grant the applicant’s request and determine an appropriate RDP...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03988

    Original file (BC 2013 03988.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a letter to the applicant dated 10 December 2013, AFPC/DPSID advised him that his first avenue of relief for his request to replace the 14 January 2012 EPR with the 4 July 2011 and 16 January 2012 electronic EPRs would be through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant's record be corrected to reflect promotion to the rank of TSgt with a Date of Rank (DOR) and Promotion Effective Date (PED) of 1 May 2013. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03538

    Original file (BC 2013 03538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 Feb 13, he was given a AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Qualification Status, which incorrectly authorized him to complete push-ups and sit-ups during FA testing, resulting in failure of his 28 Feb 13 FA because he only completed 10 push-ups. The applicant did not provide the Army version of the profile that was given to him, nor did he provide the original profile that should have been dated and signed by the Medical Provider on or about 15 Feb 13. While the Board notes the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03948

    Original file (BC-2012-03948.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    His corrected record, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB). In support of his request the applicant submitted copies of his DLAB and DLPT scores, USCENTAF Form 1, Air Medal (AM) and Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) Mission Information – Justification Sheet, citations for the Air Medal Second and Third Oak Leaf Cluster, a memorandum from his commander and supporting documents. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00264

    Original file (BC 2013 00264.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As a result of the failed FA’s, his projected promotion to the grade of SSgt was cancelled and he received a referral EPR. Although DPSOE initially recommended denial of the applicant’s request to be supplementally considered for promotion to...