RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02387 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His previously awarded Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters (AFCM w/2OLC) be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The MSM his unit submitted was downgraded by the Group Commander (GP/CC). The GP/CC violated AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, Para 3.3.1. by not forwarding the medal to the approval authority. This was part of the Inspector General (IG) complaint he submitted. The case was referred to the Air Force Reserve Service Commander (AFRS/CC) who stated that recipients of the MSM must serve at the flight chief level or above and have exceptional performance. This standard is also a violation of AFI 36-2803 para 2.2.6 “Do not establish preconditions for an award.” The preconditions set by the AFRS commander is the only reason he did not receive the MSM his unit leadership thought he earned. The AFRS/CC found his performance in recruiting to be commendable but not consistent with past AFRS MSM recipients. The applicant provides MSM citations that two other recruiters received. These documents are important as it proves these recruiters held the same positions he held and that it is possible to be awarded the MSM at a level below flight chief. Moreover, he earned the Enlisted Recruiter of the Year award for Fiscal Years (FY) 2009 and FY 2010. In 2011, he became an officer accessions recruiter. This program required a higher level of responsibility with less oversight. He has had exceptional performance as evidenced by his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR), in addition to the aforementioned accolades; he was awarded the squadron's Officer Recruiter for FY 20ll and FY 2012 and pushed the squadron to number two of eight in the recruiting group. He was awarded the AFRS Silver badge for excellence for four consecutive years and the coveted AFRS Silver Badge ring which showcases the person who has exceeded the 115 percent target four times. The AFRS Silver ring was awarded to only 2 of the 47 recruiters in his squadron. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of all of his EPRs while assigned to recruiting duty, AFRS/CC memorandum, award citations, and various other documents associated with his request His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was awarded the AFCM for meritorious service for the period 8 Oct 2008 through 15 Oct 2012. The MSM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguish themselves by either outstanding achievement or meritorious service to the United States. The AFCM was authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force on 28 Mar 1958, for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force after 24 Mar 1958, shall have distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement and service. The degree of merit must be distinctive, though it need not be unique. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that the AFCM is the decoration the approval authority would have approved had all procedures been followed in accordance with AFI 36-2803. The MSM may be awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces who distinguished themselves by outstanding meritorious achievement or service to the United States. In a memorandum dated 19 Mar 2013, the AFRS commander states the recommendation for the MSM was not forwarded for his approval in accordance with AFI 36-2803. He determined that no injustice occurred as he would have downgraded the recommendation to the AFCM had the MSM recommendation reached his desk. The AFRS commander contends the applicant received the appropriate level of decoration for his act/achievement and was not "negatively impacted by ... procedural error." The commander stated in his memorandum that generally personnel awarded the MSM had held supervisory positions at the flight chief or higher level and had exceptional duty performance. The applicant claims there were preconditions set for award of the MSM appears to be a possible misinterpretation of the AFRS commander’s statement. The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Aug 2013 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 this application in Executive Session on 4 and 5 Mar 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2013-02387: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 May 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 2 Jul 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013. Panel Chair 4 4 5