RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-00749 INDEX CODE:	107.00
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He	receive	an	end-of-tour	Meritorious	Service	Medal	(MSM) rightfully earned during his assignment at Cannon AFB, NM.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His wing commander abused his authority by denying his end-of- tour MSM because he did not like his testimony during a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) conducted on his former group commander. The denial of an MSM and actions taken against him were solely based on the wing commander's selfish pursuit of his former group commander. The Air Force refuses to fully investigate his complaints against the wing commander. A clear injustice has been done to his career which has resulted in his nonselection to the command chief master (CCM) board two years in a row.

In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of letters to his congressman, a letter from the Inspector General, Department of Defense (DOD/IG), a copy of his IG complaint, a letter from Air Force IG, a redacted copy of the IG Report, an email to DoD/IG and a copy of his MSM decoration submission.

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 Chief Master Sergeant with a date of rank of 1 July 2001.

In July 2005, the 12th Air Force Commander had received an anonymous letter containing various allegations of misconduct against the group commander. Based on performance and judgment issues brought to light by the findings of a subsequent CDI, the wing commander relieved the applicant of his position as the Chief Enlisted Manager for the maintenance group because he had lost confidence in his ability to lead.

On 15 March 2006, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Air Force Inspector General (SAF/IG), Director

of Senior Official Inquiries, alleging the wing commander violated standards by removing him from his position as maintenance group chief enlisted manager and by taking other actions against him leading up to a transfer to another base, reprisal for protected communications he made to his congressman and to the wing IG. The IG concluded that the wing commander had full authority to remove him from his position and transfer him when he had lost confidence in his ability to lead. In addition, the evidence failed to substantiate that the wing commander reprised against him because the IG found out that the applicant had made the protected communication well after he had been removed and the other actions had already been set in motion. The DoD/IG reviewed the SAF/IG report of investigation (ROI) and concluded there was no wrong doing or misconduct on the part of the wing commander. (See Exhibit B).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial noting that the wing commander has approval authority for the MSM and below for all Air Force members within their command.

AFPC/DPSIDR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states SAF/IG wants to lead the Board to believe that he filed his complaints because he was removed from his job. However, that's not the main reason. The abuse of authority comes in to play because the wing commander ruined his career and denied his decoration while in pursuit of his former group commander. Even after arriving at his new assignment at XXXXXXX, the wing commander at Cannon AFB had no reason to continue to call --abusing his authority. His actions have tainted his career forever but the Board has a chance to fix this injustice.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, the majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts its
1.	
rationale as the basis for a majority of the Board’s conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Persuasive evidence has not been provided which would lead the majority of the Board to believe that the administrative action taken by his wing commander was beyond the scope of his discretionary authority. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2008-00749 in Executive Session on 11 June 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member Member

A majority of the Board voted to deny the application. XXXXXXX voted to correct the records but does not wish to submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Inspector General Report, dated 17 Jan 06. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 26 Mar 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 08.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 10 Apr 08, w/atchs.