RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  0101372
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
		COUNSEL:  None Indicated

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Meritorious Service Medal for the period 2 December 1990 to 15 June 1991 be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His recommendation for the BSM was disapproved by Central Air Force (CENTAF) due to CENTAF not permitting more than four (4) awards to be given per unit.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of the Bronze Star award recommendation package.  Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a Reserve officer serving on extended active duty in the grade of colonel.  A resume of his assignments, extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS), is at Exhibit B.  The PDS further shows that he has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal with 3 oak leaf clusters (OLCs), Air Force Commendation Medal, and the Air Force Achievement Medal with 1 OLC.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Division, AFRC/DPM, indicates that CENTAF was the approval agency for all decorations associated with Desert Shield/Storm operations and they cannot provide rationale for CENTAF’s disapproval.  DPM states that a request for reconsideration of a disapproved or downgraded award recommendation must be placed in official channels within 1 year from the date of the awarding authority’s decision.  Therefore, DPM recommends the applicant’s request be denied (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 August 2001 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  While his case file reflects a recommendation package for the award of the BSM was submitted on 6 December 1991, the final decision was not to award him for this decoration.  The recommendation package is a recommendation only; the decision to approve or disapprove such a recommendation rests with a award approving authority.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has not provided evidence which was unavailable during the processing of the award recommendation.  Furthermore, we have seen no evidence indicating the recommendation for the award of the BSM was improperly downgraded or that the award approving authority’s decision represented an abuse of discretionary authority.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been a victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find not 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 3 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 2000 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPM, dated 19 July 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 August 2001.

                                   	
                                   Panel Chair