RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01050
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), fourth oak leaf cluster (4OLC), awarded on occasion of her retirement from the Air Force, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The award that was originally written as an MSM was subjectively changed.  The award of an AFCM for retirement medal was inconsistent with the squadron's criteria for awarding MSMs.  She made numerous attempts to have her AFCM upgraded through her Congressman, her former wing commander, and the Inspector General.  She finds it shameful that after all she had done for the squadron and the Air Force she was sent away in such a manner because of a subjective decision made by her commander.  

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, copies of documents associated with her attempts to have the medal upgraded.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 8 Apr 77.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 96.  On 1 Jul 01, she voluntarily retired from the Air Force for length of service.  She served 23 years, 2 months, and 23 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPR states that in response to her request that her AFCM be upgraded, her wing commander informed her that after review of her duty, conduct, and decoration recommendation, he felt that award of the AFCM was appropriate.  Although her last two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) show an overall rating of "5" on the reverse, the front of both EPRs are not "firewalled" and it is noticeable that neither EPR recommends promotion and both were only sent as high as the Rater's Rater for comment, even though she was time-in-grade eligible for senior rater endorsement.  

She did not provide any documentation that would substantiate her allegations that her squadron commander discriminated against her nor did she provide any statements from anyone in her chain of command to substantiate her claims.  She has not provided sufficient documentation showing that her squadron commander subjectively changed the original recommendation or that award of the AFCM was inconsistent with the squadron's policy for retirement decorations.  She has not provided any documents showing that she performed her duties in such an outstanding manner that would warrant award of the MSM.

The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 May 02 for review and comment 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the available evidence of record, we are not convinced that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Her contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find her uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provide by the Air Force.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that her commander acted inappropriately in deciding what type of medal was warranted or that he abused his discretionary authority in rendering that decision.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 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 Docket Number 02-01050 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 30 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.