RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01904 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) as an end-of-tour medal. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: An end of tour medal was not submitted by his supervisor in a timely fashion. He attempted to correct the discrepancy by submitting a recommendation through his former unit. It was rejected at the group level because it was not submitted by his immediate supervisor who wrote his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs). His supervisor could not be reached and he has since separated from the military. He served five years of excellent service from 2 Jan 02 to 29 Nov 06. He received Honor Guard Guardsman of the Year in 2003 and Drill Team Member of the Year in 2006. Additionally, he was presented with over 300 coins for superior performance and all five of his annual EPRs were rated at the highest rating possible. He followed the instructions for submitting retroactive recommendations for awards as stated by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 1996, by contacting his Congressman so that he could contact the Secretary of the Air Force on his behalf. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of a response from his Congressman, SAF/LL, a letter of recommendation, his EPRs, a proposed citation, photos showing the various awards and coins he has received. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Air Force. The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force which are included at Exhibits B and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that the original approving authority researched the issue and concluded that there was no evidence that the applicant’s unit ever submitted a decoration through squadron channels to the Mission Support Group. The applicant contends that he attempted to correct the discrepancy by submitting a recommendation through his former unit, but it was rejected. However, no official documentation was submitted to reflect the rejection. The applicant provided a recommendation from Lt Col A., former 16th Logistics Readiness Squadron Commander, retired, for the AFCM for outstanding achievement from 2 Jan 02 to 29 Nov 06, a proposed citation, and congressional interest from his congressman. The original approval authority, the 1st Special Operations Wing Commander, provided a memorandum for the record stating that the applicant left Hurlburt Field in Nov 06, and waited nearly six years to submit an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The commander further stated that there is no evidence that an end of tour decoration was submitted by the applicant’s chain of command and “unless he can provide creditable evidence that criteria in AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations Program paragraph 3.3.1 applies, he is unable to grant an award.” In accordance with AFI 36-2803, paragraph 2.2.6, no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an operational temporary duty or departure from an assignment. In addition, 3.1, states to submit recommendations as soon as possible following the act, achievement, or service. Enter each recommendation (except the Purple Heart) into official channels within 2 years and award within 3 years of the act, achievement, or service performed. NOTE: A recommendation is placed in official channels when the recommending official signs the recommendation (DECOR6 and justification) and a higher official in the chain of command endorses it. 3.1.1, states you may resubmit recommendations that were placed into official channels within the prescribed time limits, but no award was made because the recommendation was lost or was not processed or acted on due to administrative error. Reconsideration is contingent on the presentation of credible evidence that the recommendation was officially placed in military channels or was submitted, but not acted on through loss or inadvertence. Process the recommendation following the original channels. NOTE: When organizations no longer exist, process the recommendation through the replacement organizations. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 2 May 13, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant does not provide documentary evidence that an award was submitted by his former unit. Absent a copy of the “rejected” submission or a statement from the squadron commander at the time of his Permanent Change of Station (PCS), the Air Force Decorations Board cannot validate that an error in processing occurred. The lack of an award at the time of PCS does not necessarily constitute an error or injustice. As stated in the governing instruction, AFI 36-2803, paragraph 2.2.6., “no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an operational TDY or departure for an assignment. The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He believes that an injustice has occurred. When a unit submits a member for an award or a decoration, they do not keep the member in the loop on what is going on and the member is not courtesy copied on any correspondence. If the member is “rejected,” he/she is not notified. The only way to find out is to inquire about it. He had already PCS’d four years when the process was started by people who did not know him. Getting any information from them over the phone was hard enough; to get something in writing would be on the verge of impossible. He was unable to get a response from the commander at the time of his PCS. He understands that “no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an operational TDY or departure for an assignment.” He demonstrated superior performance for five years while stationed at Hurlburt Field AFB, FL. He received several medals, to include one for an act of courage and outstanding achievement during his current assignment. He achieved the rank of master sergeant in 10 years (six years ahead of the Air Force average). Not having an end-of-tour medal will raise red flags when he is considered by the senior master sergeant board next year and could damage his career. The applicant's complete response 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 timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. The applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation is noted; however, we do not find it sufficiently persuasive to overcome the rationale provided by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs). Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Should the applicant provide supporting documentation from his former commander we would be willing to reconsider his request. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 issue 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 Docket Number BC-2012-01904 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 30 Apr 13. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 7 Oct 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 9 Oct 13. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 13. 1 2