RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02179
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), third oak leaf cluster (3OLC), awarded for the period 4 Aug 98 through 10 Aug 99, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been awarded the MSM because he exceeded the standards that are required for a technical sergeant (TSgt) to be awarded the MSM.  His performance during the 12-month period was truly remarkable and was one of the best in the command.  He submitted a request for upgrade of the AFCM to his commander in an attempt to resolve this issue at a lower level.  He received emails that led him to believe his commander was leaning towards approval; however, his commander denied his request simply stating that he felt the AFCM was appropriate for his grade and achievements.  The commander was new and the applicant feels that his decision should have been based on his performance during the period in which he was not the commander rather than his personal feelings.  Another TSgt in his squadron was awarded the MSM.  His performance and achievements while at Kunsan AB far exceeded those of TSgt  as evidenced by his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) and other documents that he provided.  His supervisory chain stated that he was the number one TSgt in the squadron, yet TSgt  received an MSM and he did not, which proves that there is some inconsistency in the decoration process.  

In response to the Air Force's request for additional justification, the applicant states that the wing's policy was that if an individual was to receive a decoration higher than what was expected for his/her rank, there had to have been solid justification in the form of a letter.  This stems from the unwritten rule that airmen should not get AFCMs and TSgts should not get MSMs.  This unwritten rule is common across the Air Force, yet it is common for wing commanders to award decorations to individuals even though they do not meet the rank requirements.  He was unable to retrieve the wing policy but did provide a memorandum from TSgt , who was awarded an MSM 3 months after the applicant's departure.  In the memorandum, TSgt B--- states that the applicant deserved an MSM and that the flight leaders promised both of them an MSM.  The statement in his EPR which reads "#1 TSgt in the command" confirms that his performance exceeded all TSgts in his career field.  His commander signed the EPR yet failed to award him an MSM, demonstrating a lack of consistency in the decoration selection process.  His rater and SMSgt H--- were in his chain of command and were the main reasons he was not recommended for the MSM.  He did not contact them or anyone else from his flight management.  His first sergeant sent the AFCM citation back to the flight and asked why he was not being awarded the MSM.  The decision not to award him the MSM was unfair, the flight could have easily justified an MSM but instead verbally justified why he should not receive one without any written documentation.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and documents associated with his request for upgrade of his AFCM.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Feb 85.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 01.  He served with the 8th Supply Squadron at Kunsan AB, Korea during the period 4 Aug 98 through 10 Aug 00.  He was awarded the AFCM 2OLC as an end-of-tour decoration.  As a result of a previous AFBCMR case, the applicant was awarded the AFCM 2OLC.  As a result, the contested AFCM was changed from 2OLC to 3OLC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR states in his response to their letter to the applicant requesting additional information and justification, he alleges that he was being discriminated against by being awarded the AFCM instead of the MSM.  He did not provide any documentation other than email to show that he made a formal request, through administrative channels, to have the decoration upgraded.  He did not provide any documentation showing that the policy prohibited award of the MSM to individuals with the rank of TSgt and below.  He did not provide any statements or documents from anyone in his [then] chain of command to substantiate his allegations of bias, only statements from peers and subordinates.  He has not explained why, if his two immediate NCO supervisors were so prejudiced against him, they continually submitted him for other awards throughout his assignment in Korea.  His commander recommended award of the AFCM at the time of his departure, which was approved by the present commander, and his request for upgrade to the MSM was denied.  Obviously they are privy to information that is not available for presentation to the AFBCMR.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he was unjustly denied the MSM due to a personal conflict with management.  Proving discrimination is always hard to do; however, he has shown that his performance during the time exceeded many of his peers as well as some of his superiors.  He went through his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) at Moody AFB to the MPF at Kunsan AB, who in turn went to the 8th Supply Squadron requesting upgrade.  There is no written policy that prohibits TSgts from getting an MSM.  If there was, then the other TSgt would not have received an MSM, 3 months after the applicant departed.  He did not provide proof from anyone in his chain of command because he knows he would not have received anything from them.  He is accusing his immediate chain of command of discrimination; therefore, why would he ask them to support his allegations.  

Within 4 months of his arrival at Kunsan AB he had completely revamped a 44 million dollar program.  This earned him the respect of his flight leaders and commander (Major P---).  He was well respected for his accomplishments and known throughout the wing and command.  He did not explain why he was continually submitted for awards by his supervisors because it did not occur.  He fought for one of his subordinates to be awarded a medal and that is when everything went downhill.  Nobody in his element was submitted for an award since he won the awards.  His supervisor wrote a two-page AF Form 1206 for the Lance P. Sijan Award, only for his to find out later that he never intended to submit him.  His commander at the time was Major P---.  He was there until June 1999.  Major H--- knew of his accomplishments on paper but never knew what it took to get there.  Major H--- arrived the last 45 days of his tour.  His EPR was written before Major H--- arrived.  The applicant requested that his medal be written before Major P--- and the logistics commander left, but his supervisor held the Décor-6 until a few days after Major P--- left.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and copies of documents previously submitted.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find his 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 his 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 BC-2002-02179 in Executive Session on 27 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 02, w/acths.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 5 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jan 03, w/atchs.