RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1999-00862
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive the Meritorious Service Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM w/2 OLC) for the period 8 July 1992 through 10 May 1993.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After serving honorably during a tour of duty in South Korea, he did not receive a decoration that clearly shows he should have been awarded.  He states that his supervisor concurred that he should have received the award.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XXXXX, Awards and Decorations Section Promotion, Evaluation, & Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states that the applicant has been attempting since 1994 through correspondence and telephone calls to his immediate supervisor and additional rater to obtain an end of tour decoration for his accomplishments in Korea.  However, both have consistently refused to resubmit a recommendation for the AFCM w/2 OLC, or to submit a recommendation for the MSM w/2 OLC.

In 1994, the applicant’s supervisor, in response to a request to sign the recommendation for an MSM w/2OLC, stated, “. . .as I discussed with you before, your primary duty at 7th  AF was to identify, recommend, and solve troop and family housing deficiencies, primarily at Osan AB.  You barely scratched the surface on that task; you wasted time and occupied yourself with many other things of your liking.”  He closed with, “. . .I stick by my previous decision, I will not recommend you for a decoration for your tour at XXth  AF.”   The applicant’s additional rater, a general officer, informed the applicant his service had been discussed with the XXth AF Civil Engineer at length, and the additional rater was convinced there was no discrimination involved in denial of a decoration, but “adherence to the required guidelines for appropriate award of a Meritorious Service Medal, i.e., for meritorious service that is “incontestably exceptional and of a magnitude that clearly places an individual above his or her peers.” Both officials made it clear to the applicant that they did not consider his performance of his duties to be exceptional or warranting a decoration.  The applicant has not provided any documentation showing that he was recommended for a decoration, and he can not submit a recommendation on himself.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that his former supervisor concurred with the AFCM.  He has difficulty trying to understand why the award was disapproved by 7th Air Force.  Awards should be given for duty performance during the tour of duty.  His performance is clearly demonstrated in the specific accomplishments throughout the decoration package.

The advisory focuses on why he should not receive the award rather than what did he do to justify receiving the award.  He states that maybe the only people who may care to look deeply and fairly into this matter is congressional or legal personnel.  If you look closer at this issue you will see that this is only the pole in the tent, there is far more things than the decoration.  The decoration is the tip of the iceberg, in other words he knows there is discrimination and favoritism at the 7th Air Force.  These denials are based on color of skin and other subjective things.

Applicants complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale 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 compelling 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 probable 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 23 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 15 Apr 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 May 99.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response.