RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01284
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears he is requesting consideration for award of the Meritorious Service Medal, with Second Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM 2OLC), for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was singled out and given inequitable treatment by his squadron section commander, Lt Col XXXXX, upon nearing retirement in 1998.  He requested a redress of wrong through his chain of command, but this entire chain was under the command of XXXXX/CC (Gen XXXXX) - the person who directed his squadron section commander to take the actions.  He therefore feels he could not have gotten a fair hearing from anyone under his command.  He has provided a summary of the events for the Board’s review.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), his response to the LOA, his Request for Redress of Wrong with the response from his chain of command and HQ USAF/JAG, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 23 September 1970.  He was promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9) with an effective date and date of rank of 1 November 1991.

Applicant's last seven Senior Enlisted Performance Reports, while serving in the grade of E-9, reflect an overall evaluation of “5” for the periods ending 15 April 1992 through 30 September 1997.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that, on 23 April 1998, he was given a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for engaging in an adulterous relationship in 1993 with a married woman and was therefore relieved of his duties as First Sergeant.  Applicant provided a written response to the LOA on 27 April 1998.  After reviewing applicant’s response to the LOA, his squadron section commander determined that the decision to relieve the applicant from his duties as First Sergeant would stand.

On 18 May 1998, the applicant submitted a Request for Redress of Wrong to his squadron section commander.  Specifically, requesting reconsideration of her actions pertaining to serving him with an LOA, removal from his position as First Sergeant and the decision to not submit him for a retirement award.  After considering applicant’s submission for reconsideration, the squadron section commander found no compelling reason to disturb her earlier decision regarding the retirement decoration.  The applicant then submitted his appeal for Redress of Wrong up through his chain of command and his requests for redress were denied.

On 30 September 1998, the applicant was relieved from active duty under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Sufficient Service for Retirement) and retired in the grade of E-9 on 1 October 1998.  He had completed a total of 28 years and 8 days of active service for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied.  DPPPR stated that the inclusive dates of the applicant’s last decoration (Air Force Achievement Medal, with First Oak Leaf Cluster) are 12 December 1994 to 30 April 1995.  The applicant was the First Sergeant of the Headquarters Squadron, XXX Command, from 1992 until his 1998 retirement.  He received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), was relieved of his duties as First Sergeant, and denied a retirement decoration based on actions that were being publicized on XXX AFB by the applicant and his [then] spouse.  The applicant appealed these actions and requested a retirement decoration to the XXX Commander, XXth Air Force commander and through the Judge Advocate General channels.  He was informed by each that the appropriate action had been taken and his requests were denied.  Retirement decorations require review of the individual’s records and consideration of the individual’s entire career to determine the level of decoration; however, the package is prepared using the most recent period of service.  It is DPPPR’s opinion that the applicant’s commander took the appropriate actions, in accordance with the governing Air Force instruction to deny the applicant a retirement decoration, as did the HQ XXX commander, the XXth Air Force commander and HQ USAF/JAG.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that, while there is nothing factually inaccurate in their letter, it leads the reader to false conclusions. He publicized the facts of the affair in mid to late 1992 to his commanding officer and to every subsequent commander thereafter and they took appropriate action at that time.  The 1998 phone call by his spouse was old news, he had “publicized” the events over five years earlier.  His January 1995 reenlistment meant that past sins were not sufficient to disallow future attainments -- this began a new “most recent period of service.”  After publicizing the affair to his commanding officers, he received firewall Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) and his Performance Feedback Worksheets (PFWs) were exemplary.  He was not denied a Good Conduct Medal for any of the time in question.  As to the redress issue, fair treatment was impossible.  His records and actions during the period of service in question do place him above his peers.  The most recent period of service, as he understands it, is the total time encompassed by the current enlistment.  He reenlisted in 1995, the affair and its publication were in 1992, and the MSM was denied in 1998.  Given the facts of his case and remembering the time line, he cannot see any outcome except approval of his request for award of the MSM.  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 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 error or injustice.  Due to applicant’s misconduct, he was not recommended for a decoration at retirement.  We commend the applicant for his service to his country; however, a decoration at retirement is not an automatic entitlement.  We noted that the applicant’s request for redress of wrongs under Article 138, UCMJ, was denied by the commander of the XXth Air Force, that the decision was sustained by HQ USAF/JAG on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, and that the commander of the XXX Command considered the matter closed.  In accordance with the governing Air Force instruction, decorations cannot be awarded or presented to any person whose entire service for the period covered has not been honorable.  Evidence has not been presented which shows to our satisfaction that Air Force policy or instructions were violated by not awarding the applicant retirement recognition in the form of an MSM.  In view of the above and in the absence of sufficient evidence that the commander’s actions were contrary to the prevailing instruction or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-01284 in Executive Session on 28 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 20 Jun 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 9 Jul 03.