RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02331
		INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The applicant submits five DD Forms 149 requesting the following corrections to his records: 

1.  He be awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (GWOT-EM) for his assignment to Operation Enduring Freedom prior to 19 March 2003.

2.  He be awarded the Afghanistan Campaign Medal (ACM), Iraqi Campaign Medal (ICM), with one bronze service star (w/1BSS), NATO Medal, and the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM).  (The ICM, w/1BSS and AFCAM was administratively corrected by HQ AFPC/DPSIDR).  

3.  His DD Form 214 be amended to reflect award of the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal” (MSM) rather than the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM); however, he is not requesting SSB consideration for this award.  

4.  Block 8a on his DD Form 214 be changed from AFELM JLATF West OL OT (ZPA) to AFELM JIAFT West OL OT (ZPA).

5.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be corrected to reflect a Definitely Promote (DP), he be reinstated to active duty and assigned a school slot at the Air War College, with a follow-up assignment in a command position.

6.  His corrected records be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel CSB; and/or he be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel as though selected by the CY00A CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should be entitled to the requested awards in conjunction with his service in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) and IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF).  

His CY00A PRF was illegally changed from “Definitely Promote” to “Promote.”  

In support of his appeals, the applicant submits copies of his DD Form 214, deployment orders, and other supporting documents.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 5 Jan 84.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of major with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Jan 96.  

He was considered and nonselected by the CY99B, CY00A, CY01B, CY02B, and the CY03A Lieutenant Colonel CSBs.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 1996 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	05 Mar 96			Meets Standards (MS)
	05 Mar 97			MS
	05 Mar 98			MS
	05 Mar 99			MS
	08 Oct 99			MS
	03 Jul 00			MS
	29 Jun 01			Training Report
	03 Jul 01			MS
	03 Jul 02			MS
	08 Apr 03			MS

On 30 Jun 04, he was relieved from active duty and retired for length of service, effective 1 Jul 04, in the grade of major.  He was credited with 20 years, 5 months, and 26 days of active service.

By letter, dated 21 Aug 08, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP advised the applicant that in order to properly evaluate his request to have his PRF changed to reflect “Definitely Promote” rather than “Promote,” he would have to provide the following information/documentation:

	a.  Specify exactly which PRF is in question.  

	b.  Provide the reacommplished PRF.

	c.  Provide a statement from the senior rater.

	d.  Provide a statement from the Management Level Review (MLR) board president.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 was administratively corrected to reflect award of the ICM, w/1BSS, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOT-SM), and the AFCAM.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial of the applicant’s requests for award of the ACM, GWOT-EM, NATO Medal, and changing his DD Form 214 to reflect award of the Air Force MSM, rather than Defense MSM.  

AFPC/DPSIDR indicates that to be eligible for the ACM, a service member must be assigned or attached to a unit participating in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM for 30 consecutive days or for 60 nonconsecutive days in Afghanistan ….  

Servicemembers who qualified for the GWOT-EM by reason of service in Afghanistan between 24 Oct 01 – 30 Apr 05 shall remain qualified for that medal.  However, any servicemember who wishes to do so may be awarded the ACM in lieu of the GWOT-EM.  No servicemember is entitled to both the GWOT-EM and the ACM for the same act, achievement, or period of service.  They were unable to verify the applicant’s entitlement to the ACM, because they found no evidence of a deployment to Afghanistan.

To be awarded the GWOT-EM, individuals must have deployed abroad, on or after 11 Sep 01 and a future date to be determined, for service in the OEF and OIF.  They were able to determine the applicant was deployed to Kuwait then further deployed to Iraq in 2003.  The applicant was awarded the ICM for this deployment; therefore, he is ineligible to receive the GWOT-EM for the same period.

Personnel eligible for the NATO medal are those members of units or staffs as set out in the Joint Operations Area (JOA) Combined Joint Statement of Requirements taking part in NATO operations in Afghanistan in accordance with the qualifying conditions.  Entitlement will be acquired by those forces under NATO command and control while in the JOA, and those deployed to the JOA under national command in support of the NATO operation.  They were unable to locate documentation to substantiate the applicant was awarded the NATO Medal.

Since the MSM reflected on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is a Department of Defense (DoD) award, it cannot be altered to be service specific as he has requested.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration and does not support a direct promotion to lieutenant colonel.  

They note HQ AFPC/DPSIDR verified the applicant’s entitlement to the AFCAM and the ICM, w/1BSS; however, these awards are not authorized to be reflected on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB).  Therefore, there is no entitlement to SSB consideration.

They also note HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP determined that additional information was required to properly evaluate the applicant’s PRF issue; however, he did not respond.

According to HQ AFPC/DPSOO, they found no injustice or error in regard to the applicant’s request for direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  The results of the CSBs were based on a complete review of his entire selection record, assessing the whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and education.  Although the officer may be qualified for promotion, he may not be the best qualified of other eligible officers competing for the limited number of promotion vacancies in the judgment of a selection board vested with discretionary authority to make such selections.  Furthermore, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records but did not get promoted.

In HQ AFPC/DPSOO’s view, Congress and DoD have made clear their intent that errors ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved through the use of SSBs.  Unfortunately, in the applicant’s case, not only would a direct promotion be inappropriate, but SSB consideration would also be inappropriate.  To be eligible for consideration by an SSB, the officer’s records must have had some type of correction made to it.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant provides supportive statements from the former Vice Commander and Director of Personnel, Seventh Air Force.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, regarding his requests for award of the ACM, GWOT-EM, NATO Medal, and change of his DD Form 214 to reflect award of the Air Force MSM, rather than Defense MSM, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPSIDR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not substantiated his burden of establishing he has suffered either an error or injustice.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting these requests.  

4.  Concerning the applicant’s request to change Block 8a on his DD Form 214 from “JLATF” West OL OT (ZPA) to “AFELM JIATF” West OL OT (ZPA), we note this request will be resolved administratively by HQ AFPC/DPSOY.  We further note that since this is not a document seen by the promotion board, no entitlement to SSB consideration is warranted as a result of the corrective action.  Additionally, it appears his records have been corrected administratively to reflect award of the AFCAM and ICM, w/1BSS.  However, AFPC/DPSOO has advised that since the awards are not authorized to be reflected on the applicant’s Officer Selection Brief, there is also no entitlement to SSB consideration as a result of this corrective action.

5.  The applicant alleges that his PRF was illegally changed from “Definitely Promote” to “Promote” prior to the convening of the CY00A CSB.  As a result, he should be reinstated to active duty and assigned a school slot at the Air War College, with a follow-up assignment in a command position.  However, in our view, the applicant has not exhausted all available administrative remedies.  In this respect, we note AFPC/DPSIDEP has advised the applicant that additional information is required to properly evaluate the PRF issues, to include the particular PRF, statements from the senior rater and MLR president, and a reaccomplised PRF.  In view of the above, we find no basis to recommend favorable action regarding his PRF and associated request for relief.  However, should the applicant provide the requested documentation, we may be inclined to reconsider this portion of his appeal.  

6.  In respect to his request for a direct promotion; officers compete for promotion under the whole person concept whereby a multitude of factors are carefully assessed by the selection board members prior to scoring the record.  They may be qualified but – in the judgment of selection board members vested with discretionary authority to make the selections –- he/she may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Consequently, a direct promotion should be granted only under extraordinary circumstances; i.e., a showing the officer’s record cannot be reconstructed in such a manner so as to permit him/her to compete for promotion on a fair and equitable basis; a showing that had the original errors not occurred, the probability of his being selected for promotion would have been extremely high.  We do not find these factors in this case.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and absence any evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  

7.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02331 in Executive Session on 23 June 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02331 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 15 Apr 08 and 15 Jun 08,
                with attachments. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 30 Jun 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOO, dated 13 Nov 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 08.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 08, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Chair