RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01781 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), for the period of 12 May 2005 to 7 Nov 2005, be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM). 2. His AFAM, for the period of 24 Jan 2007 to 27 Jul 2007, be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has exhausted all available administrative remedies for reconsideration of the awards. He was verbally told his requests for upgrade were disapproved because of his grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) and “political sensitivities” that would imply that the colonels making the downgrade decisions made a mistake. Due to the sensitivity of the missions, he cannot be as detailed as he would like and some specific details were omitted from his citations; however, he provides copies of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) and other relevant documents to support his requests. He was assigned to the counterintelligence team in Iraq and was responsible for collecting intelligence that led to the live capture of two different personnel on the US priority capture/kill list. His commander told him he was submitted for a “high level medal,” however, it was downgraded because of his grade. During his deployment to Nairobi, Kenya, he was a SSgt and served as a counterintelligence officer at the US Embassy. He was one of two counterintelligence officers who covered over 224,000 square miles of a remote area known to be inhabited with local terrorists’ cells. He secured information to affect the live capture of a member of the Al Qaeda cell and information leading to the release of Marines held as prisoners. His supervisor submitted him for a DMSM but told him that he would likely be recognized for his accomplishments by AFOSI since they had a better understanding of his work. After the medal was downgraded, his deployed commander inquired as to the reason and was told it was because of his grade and that the AFAM was commensurate with his rank regardless of the merit or actions. He understands the Board affords great deference to decisions of commanders but submits evidence that the decisions of his command regarding his decorations were arbitrary, capricious and unjust. AFOSI did not award decorations based on achievement but based on rank. He only felt free to petition for reconsideration after he left active duty. He requests the Board look at the merit of his actions, the justification provided, the narrative of the decorations and documents submitted which substantiate he deserves a BSM and DMSM. In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; decoration citations, AF Forms 77, Letter of Evaluation; AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSgt); AF Forms 1206, Nomination for Award; letters of support and various other documents associated with his requests. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Nov 1998, the applicant entered active duty. According to Special Orders G-0620, dated 6 Dec 2006; and G-12506, dated 18 Mar 2008; he was awarded AFAMs for outstanding achievement for inclusive dates of 12 May 2005 to 7 Nov 2005 and 24 Jan 2007 to 27 Jul 2007, respectively. On 14 Dec 2012, he was honorably discharged. He served 14 years and 21 days on active duty. The BSM is awarded to any person who after 6 Dec 1941, while serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces of the United States, distinguishes himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participating in aerial flight, under any of the following circumstances: while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States, while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The DMSM is awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense to any active duty member of the United States Armed Forces who, after 3 Nov 1977, while serving in a joint activity distinguishes himself or herself by noncombat meritorious achievement or service. The meritorious service is generally for a period of time greater than 12 months and encompassing an individual’s entire joint assignment, including any extensions. The required achievement or service, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the Defense Superior Service medal, must have been accomplished with distinction. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. In regards to the upgrade for a BSM, the applicant was submitted for an AFAM according to the original approval authority. Although the applicant’s former superintendent contends he should have been awarded the BSM for his actions, available documentation shows that the applicant was submitted for an AFAM. To ensure consistency of decorations from combat operations, Air Force approval/recommending authority was designated to the Commander United States Central Command Air Forces for Air Force awards presented solely for actions during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and associated operations. Therefore, if the applicant wishes to pursue upgrade, he will need to exhaust his administrative means by appealing to Air Forces Central Command. There is no evidence of an error as the applicant received the decoration he was submitted for. In regards to the upgrade for a DMSM, insufficient evidence has been presented to verify the applicant was recommended and submitted for a DMSM and the award was downgraded. The applicant provided the original DMSM recommendation package dated 18 Aug 2010; however, it is for a deployment to Afghanistan in 2010; therefore, it does not support his claim that his AFAM, Second Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, awarded for his deployment to Kenya in 2007 was downgraded from the DMSM. Should he wish to pursue upgrade, he will need to appeal to the Department of Defense (DOD) for relief. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The DPSID memorandum states he did not exhaust all available remedies; however he is not aware of any other options to petition for an upgrade. He attempted to request reconsideration through his chain of command but his request was verbally denied and met with overt hostility. In fact, requesting further reconsideration would have been viewed as undermining his chain of command and career suicide. He is unable to provide copies of the decorations submitted as he was not provided copies nor was it standard practice in AFOSI that members were made aware of draft decorations. His former commander while deployed to Iraq informed him that he had submitted him for a higher decoration and feared his career would suffer if he requested reconsideration from AFOSI. He requests the Board consider his accomplishments while deployed to the Iraqi theater. Despite the fact that his team leader submitted him for a DMSM, AFOSI, who did not have first-hand knowledge of his actions ensured all decorations were equal according to rank and rank alone. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The application was timely filed. 2. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. While the applicant’s assertions are noted, he has not provided substantiated evidence of actions on his part to obtain the relief he seeks through the proper administrative channels such as US Air Forces Central Command or the DOD. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. The Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this application and indicated there is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued. In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted. Therefore, in view of the above, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Until such time as he has exhausted all available administrative relief, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief requested. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-01781 in Executive Session on 4 Mar 2014 and 5 Mar 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Aug 2013. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 2013. Exhibit D. Rebuttal, Applicant, undated, w/atch. 1 2