RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04071
		INDEX NUMBER: 107.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force Achievement Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM, 1 OLC), awarded for the period 24 April 1999 to 23 April 2001, be upgraded to an Air Force Commendation Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 2 OLC), or in the alternative, the AFAM, 1 OLC, be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for award of the AFCM, 2 OLC; however, due to an administrative failure, it was downgraded to the AFAM, 1 OLC.  His immediate chain of command was never contacted regarding the downgrading of the recommendation and was never provided an opportunity to submit additional justification for the AFCM.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of the orders and citation/certificate to accompany the award of the AFAM, 1 OLC, and statements from his former chain of command officials.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant.

On 29 December 2000, a Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) was prepared for the purpose of recommending the applicant for an end-of-tour decoration.

On 17 May 2001, he was awarded the AFAM, 1 OLC, for meritorious service during the period 24 April 1999 to 23 April 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although the request for reconsideration was properly processed through administrative channels, the final approval authority refused to consider processing the request.  The final approval authority stated that he did not support upgrading the award and that the AFAM was the appropriate decoration.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The approval authorities did not give any legitimate consideration to the award of the AFAM, 1 OLC.  The decoration he received is inaccurate and not representative of his service during the period of the award.  He performed his military duties honorably.  His immediate chain of command recognized his performance and recommended him for an AFCM.  Furthermore, the blatant inaccuracies contained within the award citation punctuate the misgivings of the system.

Applicant’s complete response 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.  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 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 to warrant upgrading the AFAM, 1 OLC, to the AFCM, 2 OLC.  Nor did the evidence provided persuade us that the AFAM, 1OLC, should be removed from the applicant’s records.  In this regard, we note that the governing instruction, AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.5, provides that a member may refuse to accept an approved decoration and may elect not to wear that decoration.  However, the decoration is updated as an approved award and the documents which prove the individual did not accept the award are filed in the individual’s Unit Personnel Records Group (UPRG) along with a copy of the citation and special order.  In view of the foregoing, and 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 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-2002-04071 in Executive Session on 14 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 2 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Apr 04.