RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02694
		INDEX NUMBER:  107.00; 111.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 Feb 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In two separate DD Form 149s, applicant makes the following requests:

	  a.  His DD Form 214 be corrected to show his award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) with “V” device.

	  b.  His DD Form 214 be corrected to show his award of the Master Parachutist Badge, Master Military Freefall Parachutist Badge and Chief Aircrew Member Badge.

	  c.  Reconsideration of the Board’s 22 Apr 97 decision to deny his request to void the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the period 17 Sep 93 to 2 Aug 94.

	  d.  He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), for the period 30 Sep 94 to 30 Sep 96.

	  e.  He be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) for missions flown between 14 Dec 94 and 22 Nov 95.

	  f.  He be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) beginning with cycle 95E8.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The omission of the qualifications badges on his DD Form 214 has caused confusion with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) because the other services include the badges on the DD Form 214 while the Air Force seems to exclude them.

In support of his request for award of the MSM (2OLC), applicant provides a letter of support from an officer who was his immediate supervisor during the timeframe in question indicating they had submitted the decoration recommendation on the applicant for presentation at his retirement ceremony.  They also attach a copy of the proposed citation and an unsigned Décor 6.

In support of his request for award of the AAM, applicant provides a letter of support from an officer who served as the operation officer for the applicant’s assigned unit during the timeframe in question.  The officer states he submitted the recommendation for the applicant to receive the award.  The applicant also attaches an unsigned copy of a mission information-justification sheet for the AAM.

He is distraught concerning how accusations of improprieties, poor performance, bad conduct and negligence can exist without accusers giving any evidence or documentation to back up their claims.

The Air Force IG refuses to acknowledge the possibility commanders and supervisors made statements lacking truthfulness after he raised the issue and will not review his complaints further.  He asks the Board not to tie itself to the judgments and conclusions made by the IG and that the Board make an effort to reach its own independent conclusions.

Only two documents make his presumed bad conduct, poor behavior, and negligent performance a matter of official record, (1) the  19 Aug 95 IG Summary Report of Inquiry (SROI) pertaining to the complaint he made concerning unfair treatment that resulted in an unjust EPR and (2) the 17 Apr 97 response by AFPC/MSH to a SAF/IGQ inquiry pertaining to the status of the MSM and AAM awarded to him during his retirement ceremony.  Both documents fail to reveal any evidence relevant to confirming instances, frequency, and certainty of his conduct and performance.

Applicant provides a 29-page statement to provide additional evidence and information in support of his requests for award of the MSM (2OLC), AAM, and removal of the EPR closing 2 Aug 94 from his records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 10 Jul 73 and retired effective 1 Oct 96.  His records reflect the following decorations:

	  a.  Distinguished Flying Cross

	  b.  Meritorious Service Medal with one oak leaf cluster

	  c.  Air Medal

	  d.  Air Force Commendation Medal with five oak leaf clusters

A resume of the applicant’s last ten EPRs follows:

	  Closeout Date				Overall Rating

	   *22 Nov 87					9
	   *22 Nov 88					9
	  **22 Nov 89					4
	    22 Nov 90					5
	    11 Aug 91					5
	    11 Aug 92					5
	    12 Mar 93					5
	    16 Sep 93					5
	   #02 Aug 94					3
	    02 Aug 95					4

* Ratings under the Airman Performance Report (APR) system where “9” was highest possible rating.

** Start of ratings under new Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) system where “5” is the highest rating.

# Contested EPR

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/XOOT (XOOT) confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to the Master Parachutist, Master Military Freefall Parachutist, and Chief Aircrew Member badges and recommends his DD Form 214 be amended to so reflect.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (2OLC) and Aerial Achievement Medal.  The applicant is not eligible for award of the MSM (2OLC) since there is no proof of award or recommendation for the award.  He is not eligible for award of the AAM.  Approval of this award is delegated to wing commanders.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant states the evaluations failed to address all of his issues.  He notes the evaluations did not address his request to amend his DD Form 214 to show authorized wear of the “V” device on his awarded Distinguished Flying Cross.

Applicant states that regarding his request for award of the MSM and AAM, the evaluations ignore that the Air Force IG disregarded misrepresentation of facts and false statements about his conduct, behavior, and performance during his assignment to the 66th Rescue Squadron.  The inquiry officials put too much reliance on his former commander and others in his chain of command making full and honest disclosure to them.  The applicant makes the following assertions:

	  a.  He was presented the medals at his retirement ceremony.

	  b.  Inquiries he made to his former squadron and wing were never answered.

	  c.  The lack of response to his inquiries concerning the medals resulted in an Air Force IG request for action to determine the status of the awards.

	  d.  The IG request resulted in a defamation response that wrongfully stated as truth he had purposely and knowingly been negligent in his duties.  Specific comments describe his negligence as being severe enough to impair the unit from accomplishing its daily mission.  He notes that the lack of disciplinary action or official counseling regarding this assertion shows the exaggeration and lack of truthfulness of his former commander’s statements.

	  e.  His former commander’s defamatory statements resulted in his making an Air Force IG complaint alleging his former commander made false statements and that his record did not contain anything showing his conduct, performance or behavior were less than desirable.

	  f.  The Air Force IG took no action into his complaint.  He believes the IG failed to comply with the duty of exercising reasonable care to determine if any causation supported his former commander’s untruthful statement.

	  g.  His EPRs do not indicate or infer the bad conduct, poor performance, and undesirable behavior his former commander untruthfully alleges.

	  h.  His immediate supervisors provide letters they had submitted him for the awards and that they have no knowledge of any action, act, or behavior that would result in the medals being disapproved.

The applicant provides the following summarized reasons why the Board should reconsider their earlier decision not to remove the contested EPR from his record:

	  a.  His application provides reasonable cause the EPR was written with malice with the intent to end further career opportunities.

	  b.  His application identifies motivations of his superiors that caused their unconscionable and perhaps conspired undue influence that resulted in his being in an unfair and hostile place of work.

	  c.  His record shows he sustained exceptional performance and had no behavior problems prior to being transferred under the direct supervision of those who made it clear they were going to get rid of him one way or the other.

	  d.  The official record shows he tried to get fair working conditions, to include being given work he was capable of doing, but was never delegated to him.

	  e.  His complaint to the Air Force IG regarding undue influence at Headquarters Air Combat Command (ACC) resulted in his permanent change of station (PCS) to a unit that had no vacancy for his grade and skill level while vacancies at other units were ignored.

	  f.  The Air Force IG did not conduct an inquiry of discovery and consequently certain things were arbitrarily accepted as true and the documents disputing what was accepted as true were never sought.

	  g.  The IG inquiry officers failed to make reasonable effort to address and consider all facts relevant to his case.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

The applicant provided a second response to the Air Force evaluations, which address the same issues and make the same contentions as indicated above.  

The complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Board notified the applicant that although he was authorized the “V” device on his Distinguished Flying Cross, current Air Force policy was not to amend the DD Form 214 for all awards made between 18 Sep 47 and 2 Jun 04 (Misc Info).  The applicant was asked if he was asking for his DD Form 214 to be amended as an “exception to policy.”

The applicant was also asked to provide copies of the           13 attachments he referred to in his application, which were not clearly identified with his original submission.

The AFBCMR Letter is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT”S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

In response to the Board’s request, the applicant indicated he was providing two CDs with all of the documents requested.

Applicant indicates he is not aware of any published policy that would prevent his DD Form 214 being amended to indicate his authorization to wear the “V” device on his DFC.  While he considers it reasonable to deny amending his DD Form 214 solely to authorize wear of the “V” device, he is requesting this action as part of the correction of his DD Form 214 that might be necessitated by favorable action on his other requests.

The applicant comments on the Board’s previous consideration of his request to void the EPR rendered on him closing 2 Aug 94 and opines the Board did not consider the IG case file and made no mention of his non-concur rebuttal to the IG and his request for further inquiry.  He states the quality of the evidence previously considered by the Board was inaccurate and incomplete.  He states that Board members ought to consider the evidence supplementing his “current application with concern to the quality of the assertions and the aspect of reality his statements are intended to express … .”

The applicant states the evidence supplementing his current application is more complete than the Air Force IG was willing to discover and include in its case file.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit I.

The applicant sent an e-mail to the Director, Review Boards Agency regarding the attachments he provided the Board on CDs and whether they were acceptable in this format (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

BOARD’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT:

In a letter dated 17 Dec 04, the applicant was advised that none of the documents he submitted with his application had been misplaced, but the Board was having problems correlating the referenced attachments to his application.  The applicant was advised of the preferable format for submitting documentation to the Board and given 30 days to respond.

The letter is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO BOARD:

The applicant indicates his understanding of the issues the Board has with his submission.  He states he has organized his case the best he could.  He notes the strength of his application is the lack of documentary evidence the IG has to support the assertion they made in the Summary of Inquiry Findings and other responses to his complaints and his rebuttals indicating nonconcurrence.  The applicant provides his view of the errors and shortcomings of the IG Summary of Findings.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

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 regarding the following requests:

	  a.  Reconsideration of the Board’s 22 Apr 97 decision to deny his request to void the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the period 17 Sep 93 to 2 Aug 94.

	  b.  He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), for the period 30 Sep 94 to 30 Sep 96.

	  c.  He be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) for missions flown between 14 Dec 94 and 22 Nov 95.

	  d.  He be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) beginning with cycle 95E8.

Regarding the contested EPR, the applicant makes essentially the same arguments previously considered by the Board.  As in his previous appeal the applicant has not provided evidence that adequately and specifically addresses why the EPR as written is incorrect.  Although he has submitted a voluminous amount of material, he has not clearly shown the nexus between the material and the error or injustice he claims to have suffered.  Much of his argument centers around what he considers an ineffective investigation conducted by the Inspector General in his case.  However, he has not provided sufficient evidence to support his allegations.  Since we do not find a sufficient basis to void the EPR, supplemental promotion consideration is also not warranted.  The applicant has provided a letter from his former supervisor stating he recommended the applicant for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) (2OLC).  The letter does not provide any insight into why the medal was not approved or why it was presented to the applicant without being approved.  The former supervisor states he was surprised the medal was not on the applicant’s DD Form 214 (we read this to mean approved).  It is our view that normally the recommending official on a decoration has the responsibility to follow it through the process to the final decision.  There are too many unanswered questions for us to recommend granting the applicant the MSM (2OLC).  This is especially so in view of the 17 Apr 97 letter to the applicant from AFPC/MSH that confirms his immediate commander did not believe it appropriate to recommend the applicant for the award.  Similarly, the same circumstances appear to apply to the applicant’s request for the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM).  His former Operations officer provides a statement he recommended the applicant for the AAM.  However, the statement does not provide any further information regarding what happened to the recommendation.  Additionally, the copy of the recommendation form provided by the applicant does not contain the Operations officer signature.  In the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we do not find a basis to recommend approval of this portion of the applicant’s requested relief.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s requests to correct his DD Form 214 to reflect award of the Master Parachutist Badge, Master Military Freefall Parachutist Badge and Chief Aircrew Member Badge.  We accept the determination and recommendation of HQ USAF/XOOT that the applicant was previously awarded these badges and that his DD Form be updated to so reflect.  We also recommend the applicant’s DD Form 214 be updated to reflect his award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) with “V” device.  While we recognize that Air Force policy is to only update the DD Form 214 for those DFCs awarded on or after 3 Jun 04, since the applicant’s DD Form 214 will already require updating based on the badges listed above, we believe it appropriate in this case to include the DFC.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his DD Form 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,” be amended in Block 13, “Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized” as follows:

	  a.  Add the “V” device designation to his award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

	  b.  Reflect his award of the Master Parachutist Badge, Master Military Freefall Parachutist Badge and Chief Aircrew Member Badge.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-02694 in Executive Session on 31 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 04, w/atchs; DD 
                 Form 149, dated 20 Aug 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 24 Sep 04.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, undated.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Sep 04.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 04.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Oct 04.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Nov 04.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Nov 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit J.  E-mail Copy, Applicant, dated 2 Dec 04.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Dec 04.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Dec 04.

AFBCMR BC-2004-02694

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 XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that his DD Form 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,” be, and hereby is, amended in Block 13, “Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized” as follows:

		a.  Add the “V” device designation to his award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

		b.  Reflect his award of the Master Parachutist Badge, Master Military Freefall Parachutist Badge and Chief Aircrew Member Badge.