RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02065
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 AUG 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM), rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM, 4OLC), for the period 11 July 2000 to 8 July 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded the MSM 4OLC, rather than the LOM, due to a personality conflict with his wing commander.

In support of his request, the applicant submits his personal statement, the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 5 June 2001 and 5 June 2002, the MSM 4 OLC certificate/citation, the LOM narrative recommendation, a proposed LOM citation, and his biography.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force on 1 April 1980, and was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel.  On 19 June 2002, he was awarded the MSM 4OLC for meritorious service during the period 11 July 2000 to 8 July 2002, as Commander, XXXXX.  He was selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by the Calendar Year 2005 (CY05) Brigadier General Selection Board.  His record reflects award of the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, MSM 4OLC, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal 4OLC, Air Force Achievement Medal and Joint Meritorious Unit Award with 2OLCs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Director, SAFPC recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that at the time of the award in July 2003, it was common practice for the Air Force Decorations Board to approve nominations for the award of the LOM to senior officers “graduating” from group command billets, when the officer had served in this position for 18 months or more, and provided performance during that period of service otherwise warranted favorable consideration.  At that time, the Air Force Decorations Board was the sole approval authority for LOMs under these conditions and considered hundreds of nominations annually.  Since nominations for graduating group commanders were submitted by their respective wing commanders, and endorsed by major command commanders or vice commanders, it is reasonable to conclude the chain of command would have considered the applicant’s performance worthy of the award, else they would not have submitted/endorsed the nomination.

The primary source documents of the applicant’s performance seem to indicate his level of performance did rise to a level equivalent to or exceeding other similarly assigned officers.  The final line in the additional rater comments of the OPR closing 5 June 2002 indicates the applicant had already been selected to become the Commander, XXXXX, prior to the close-out date of that report.  Consequently, the MSM he received in July 2002 had no bearing on his selection for this follow-on assignment.

Under some circumstances, receipt of an MSM upon completion of a tour as a group commander, when nearly all other similarly assigned commanders were awarded LOMs, would potentially be of some concern to promotion board members and could also impact follow-on assignment actions.  However, it is apparent through the applicant’s subsequent selection for promotion to brigadier general, the promotion board members relied upon his performance as a wing commander and the source documents, i.e., OPRs, of his previous performance in making their recommendation for promotion, rather than be negatively swayed by the award of the MSM.  In other words, the award of the MSM, vice the LOM, did not hinder his subsequent promotion.  Under these circumstances, it is difficult to support a finding that an error or injustice has occurred, which would warrant favorable consideration of the application.  The applicant’s wing commander did not at the time, and apparently still does not endorse him for the higher award.  Further, the applicant did not provide any higher chain of command support, particularly from the Commander, XXXXX, who was the same additional rater who endorsed both of his OPRs during this period of service that could help justify a finding to overturn his wing commander’s decision to award the MSM.  Moreover, the applicant alleges mitigating instances and a personality conflict between himself and his wing commander as the reasons he was not nominated for the LOM, but he did not provide any character statements to substantiate that a personality conflict existed.

The Director, SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The SAFPC Decoration Board database for this specific timeframe reveals that those similarly assigned officers were in large part awarded LOMs at the end of their group commander tours.  Those are the same similarly assigned officers that he competed against and bested for selection for wing commander, which were based largely on his accomplishments as a group commander.

His sole intent is to get his case reviewed by an impartial body and set the record straight.  He wants nothing more than to have his documented performance measured against the stringent LOM approval criteria in effect at the time.  He is confident his performance merits LOM consideration and approval. 

He is not aware of any authority vested in a wing commander to arbitrarily bend or change policy guidance to suit their own purpose.  The CORONA LOM guidance in effect at the time was very specific in its direction.  That guidance, coupled with his documented accomplishments, clearly indicates an impartial consideration for an end-of-tour LOM is warranted.

He did not provide supporting documentation from his chain of command because he chose to keep the conflict with the wing commander between the two of them.  Only in the privacy of the wing commander’s office did he voice his concerns.  

Prior to resubmission of his application to the Board, he contacted both his prior wing commander and the prior XXX/CC to advise them of his intention.  His prior wing commander became visibly agitated that he would question his decision.  Up until the time he went to see the prior XXX/CC, this issue was kept between his prior wing commander and himself.  The XXX/CC empathized with him, sharing the fact that he too had been similarly victimized in his career.

He surmises the former wing commander’s reasons were personal vice professional because of the differences between them.  Based on his more recent reaction to a request for support for an upgrade of the MSM, personal differences continue to be the most rationale reason.  Another possible reason is administrative.  At the time, it was XXX policy to submit LOM recommendations 90 days prior to the requested date of presentation.  If this suspense was not met, XXX policy required a letter from the wing commander to the vice commander explaining why the submission was late.

The 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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, a majority of the Board is convinced the preponderance of evidence presented demonstrates the applicant’s performance during the contested period warrants awarding the LOM.  The Director, SAFPC has indicated that during the period in question, it was common practice for the Air Force Decorations Board to approve LOM nominations to senior officers “graduating” from group command billets when the officer had served in this position for 18 months or more, and provided performance during that period otherwise warranted favorable consideration.  While a majority of the Board is somewhat troubled by the absence of support from the XXX/CC, the comments of the Director, SAFPC, clearly indicate that during the period in question the applicant’s level of performance rose to a level equivalent to, or exceeding, other similarly assigned officers.  However, since the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general, the Director, SAFPC, ultimately opines, in essence, that since there has been “no harm there is no foul,” and recommends the application be denied.  A majority of the Board disagrees, noting the applicant has a right to receive equitable treatment.  The Board’s majority also cannot rationalize how the applicant can be selected for promotion to brigadier general over the numerous similarly assigned officers who were awarded the LOM and be the only XXX support group commander selected for a wing commander billet, yet his wing commander determined his level of performance did not warrant awarding the LOM.  Such a conclusion, in our view, simply flies in the face of reason and shocks our sense of justice.  In view of this, a majority of the Board is convinced that the MSM 4 OLC should be upgraded to the LOM.  Further, we find that, while his receipt of an MSM vice LOM may not have affected his ability to be promoted to the grade of brigadier general and obtain a wing commander billet, there is no guarantee that it will not serve to deprive him of a competitive record for promotion to a higher grade and impede his consideration for future assignments.  Therefore, considering all of the circumstances collectively, the majority recommends the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of Merit, rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster, for the period 11 July 2000 to 8 July 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-02065 in Executive Session on 9 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as recommended.  Mr. XXXX voted to deny applicant's request but does not wish to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 06, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 3 Apr 06.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Apr 06.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 1 May 06.

AFBCMR BC-2004-02065

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of Merit, rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster, for the period 11 July 2000 to 8 July 2002.