RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00070 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  He be awarded an Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for his assignment to Hurlburt, and associated deployment to Afghanistan. 2.  Based upon the additional promotion points obtained from award of the AFCM, he be retroactively selected for promotion to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E6) on the Calendar Year 2013 (CY13) E6 promotion cycle. 3.  He be reinstated onto active duty in the grade of TSgt with a date of rank commensurate with his selection for promotion in the CY13E6 promotion cycle. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unjustly denied a decoration in conjunction with his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move from Hurlburt Field, FL in 2009 because Hurlburt leadership utilized a prohibited policy. He was marked down in one block on the front of one Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 9 Feb 08 through 8 Feb 09, but was still rated an overall “5” in block IV, Overall Performance Assessment. His supervisor marked him down in one block because he believed, “A new NCO does not know everything of the duties and responsibilities about being an NCO.” Every EPR he received in his career has been an overall “5.” At the time, Hurlburt Field used a prohibited policy which denied PCS decorations to anyone who had any markdown on any part of their EPR. Therefore, even though he served over four years at Hurlburt, successfully deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), and received an overall “5” on all of his EPRs, he was denied a PCS award. The unjust denial of said award prevented him from being selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt during the CY13E6 promotion cycle where he missed promotion by only 1.38 points, and ultimately resulted in his being selected for separation under the 2014 Enlisted Retention Board after over 13 years of service. Had he been a TSgt-select, he would not have been eligible to meet the Enlisted Retention Board, and would not have been separated. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 7 Aug 01. On 25 Feb 09, the applicant was issued an EPR covering the period 9 Feb 08 through 8 Feb 09 on which he was graded “Above Average” in Block III, Part I, Primary/Additional Duties, and received a rating of “5” in Block V, Overall Performance Assessment. The applicant’s EPR history is as follows: EPR Close Out Date Location Rating 6 April 2003 Hickam AFB, HI 5 6 April 2004 Hickam AFB, HI 5 28 November 2004 Hickam AFB, HI 5 30 September 2005 Hurlburt Field, FL 5 30 September 2006 Hurlburt Field, FL 5 8 February 2007 Hurlburt Field, FL 5 8 February 2008 Hurlburt Field, FL 5 8 February 2009 Hurlburt Field, FL 5 8 February 2010 Germersheim, Germany 5 8 February 2011 Germersheim, Germany 5 8 February 2012 Germersheim, Germany 5 23 October 2013 Creech AFB, NV 5 31 January 2015 Creech AFB, NV 5 On 1 Feb 2015, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Reduction in Force,” received separation pay, and was credited with 13 years, 5 months, and 24 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice which requires correction concerning a decoration. The applicant contends he should have been awarded an AFCM for his assignment to Hurlburt. The AFCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States, below the grade of colonel and foreign military personnel, who, while serving in any capacity with the Department of the Air Force after 28 Mar 58, distinguished themselves by outstanding achievement or meritorious service. In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program, a member’s immediate supervisor determines the propriety of a decoration recommendation. The AFI also states “Do not establish preconditions for a decoration.” The applicant alleges there was prohibited guidance being used at Hurlburt for the purpose of denying decorations to those receiving less than perfect markings on their latest EPR, and provided an e-mail which appears to confirm such guidance was in place while the applicant was assigned to Hurlburt. If such guidance was in place, it would have constituted a pre-condition to award of a decoration, which is prohibited by AFI 36-2803. However, we were unable to locate, and the applicant did not provide, official documentation proving the existence and wording of said guidance. Further, in order to reasonably consider the applicant’s request for a decoration he would need to submit an award recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of his achievements preferably someone within his the chain of command, a proposed citation with inclusive dates, and an eyewitness statement. He did not provide said documentation. While the applicant’s EPRs covering his assignment at Hurlburt reflect no derogatory information, the markdown on his EPR may indicate his chain of command determined his accomplishments did not warrant a decoration. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE does not make a recommendation, but explains the impact an AFCM would have had on the applicant’s promotability. The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to TSgt during cycle 13E6. His decoration score was 5.00, his total weighted promotion score was 339.82 and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 341.20. He missed promotion by 1.38. The AFCM is worth three points toward promotion. Therefore, had he received an AFCM he would become a selectee for promotion pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation from his commander. The applicant was also considered and nonselected for TSgt during the 14E6 cycle. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In further support of his request, the applicant provides the following: 1.  A memorandum from the 37th Training Wing Vice Commander, who served as his commander at Hurlburt, stating that during her time a Hurlburt very few new NCOs received fire-wall five EPRs, but that did not mean they were not good Airmen deserving of PCS medals. She PCS’d before the applicant, was unaware the applicant did not receive a PCS decoration, and would have whole-heartedly supported the applicant for a decoration. The applicant deserved the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) when he departed Hurlburt Field in 2009. 2.  A memorandum from the Master Sergeant (now retired) who served as his immediate supervisor at Hurlburt in 2009, stating he himself was deployed when the applicant PCS’d, he was not aware the applicant had not received a decoration upon his PCS from Hurlburt, and contends the applicant clearly earned an AFCM. 3.  A memorandum from a co-worker who knew him well at Hurlburt and recommends him for reentry into the Air Force. 4.  A proposed citation for the AFCM covering the period of time he served at Hurlburt Field, FL based upon his major accomplishments during that period. 5.  All of his EPRs and decorations. (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 an 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 AFPC/DPSID and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. The Board acknowledges the recommendations for award of the AFCM from the applicant’s supervisor and Vice Wing Commander from Hurlburt. However, the Board notes the applicant’s immediate commander on G-Series Orders would have been the individual responsible for determining whether or not the applicant’s performance warranted nominating him for award of the AFCM, and this application does not contain any explanation from that responsible commander concerning what appears to be his or her decision not to nominate the applicant nor a current recommendation to grant him the award. Without support from the applicant’s commander, the Board chooses not to overturn what appears to be the responsible commander’s decision. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-00070 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00070 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 1 Aug 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Nov 14. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Jun 15, w/atchs.