RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01500
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), fourth oak leaf cluster (4OLC), awarded for the period 16 November 98 through 23 July 2001, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and he be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record of accomplishments and performance during the period in question warranted an MSM as an end-of-tour decoration.  His three Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and deployment Letter of Evaluation (LOE) covering that time period indicate numerous significant successful accomplishments that were either poorly reflected, or not included in the AFCM decoration citation.  It is his belief and contention that an AFCM as an end-of-tour decoration was insufficient and the unwillingness of the reporting/approval chain to award an MSM was unjustified.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and documents associated with his request for upgrade of his AFCM, copies of OPRs and a recommendation for the award of the MSM.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.  He served as the Chief, Ground Systems Support Section, Basing Branch, Plans Division, Directorate of Plans and Programs, Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia during the period 16 November 1998 through 23 July 2001. He also was deployed for a four-month period to Ecuador for a special project.  He was awarded the AFCM (4OLC) as an end-of-tour decoration.  

The applicant has two nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B and CY02A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.  The CY03A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board also considered the applicant, however, results have not been released.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial and stated that the applicant did not submit a written request for reconsideration through administrative channels to the original final approval authority, nor was an inquiry submitted within the one-year time frame allowed by AFI 36-2803.  His former rater would not respond through email.  His former additional rater did respond to an email inquiry, and stated that the applicant…”lacked the initiative a field grade officer on headquarters staff should display,” as the reason that the applicant was recommended for award of an AFCM instead of MSM.  It should also be noted that the applicant did not disagree with award of the AFCM, (4OLC) until he was non-selected for promotion.  The applicant’s former supervisors all agreed that he was not entitled to the MSM after much discussion of the matter.  The applicant’s duty performance and in comparison to decorations awarded to the applicant’s peers, and their decision should not be overturned.  

The applicant originally submitted a DD Form 149 in April 2003, but it was returned to him to exhaust all administrative channels.  He could not obtain a copy of the original recommendation package, but did obtain email responses to inquire about his decoration recommendation and chain of command support.

AFPC/DPPPR completion evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial based on the evidence provided and the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPR.

AFPC/DPPPO completion evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that it’s all about taking care of your people.  He has been a supervisor, and served as a missile combat crew commander, flight commander, detachment commander, interim squadron commander, and expeditionary squadron commander during much of his Air Force career.  He has always known the importance of recognizing and rewarding people appropriately for their accomplishments and job performance.  By downgrading the MSM to an AFCM, simply because of petty personal differences, he believes his former rating chain failed to afford him that same recognition.  In light of his documented accomplishments and performance, their decision to downgrade the award was arbitrary, inconsistent, and completely unjustified.  He recognizes the difficulty the AFBCMR faces in sorting through the issues of this type of request, and in making a responsible determination of a specific injustice.  However, he believes he has presented a justifiable case to warrant the upgrade of his AFCM end-of-tour decoration to an MSM, and hopes the board approves and grants this request.  Thank you for.

In further support of his appeal, he submits a letter of support from his deployed commander.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Applicant’s 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 chain of command acted inappropriately in deciding what type of medal was warranted.  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 2003-01500 in Executive Session on 13 November 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 Aug 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Sep 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 03.
	Exhibit F.	 Applicant’s Response, dated 22 Oct 03, w/atch.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair