RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02607 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Medals (AM), fourth bronze oak leaf cluster through eighth bronze oak leaf cluster (4OLC to 8OLC) be awarded and applied retroactively to his promotion cycle (13E6) to technical sergeant (E-6). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to high operations tempo, there was lack of continuity in the processing of his AMs. Because the medals were not properly awarded, he missed a promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) and continues to be at a disadvantage with his peers. After years of his own due diligence, and much frustration, he has collected all the proper documentation but, again, the medals have been lost. He has exhausted all efforts to use the proper processes because they continue to result in his documentation becoming lost in the system. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a member of the Regular Air Force, currently serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). On 4 Dec 07, the applicant was awarded his most recent AM (3 OLC), for inclusive dates of 5 Aug 05 to 17 Jan 06. On 14 Nov 14, SAF/MRBR sent a letter to the applicant, advising him he had not exhausted other administrative avenues prior to requesting relief from the AFBCMR. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the AM (4OLC – 8OLC), indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The AM may be awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, subsequent to 8 Sep 39, distinguishes himself or herself by meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial flight. The AM may be awarded for combat or non- combat action in recognition of single acts of valor, heroism, or merit while participating in aerial flight. Additionally, it may be conferred for sustained meritorious achievement (distinction) in the performance of duties involving aerial flight. The original award approval authority, United States Air Forces Central Command (USCENTAF), was contacted in regard to the applicant's request for his AM (4OLC – 8OLC) package. They advised the last package they received on the applicant was for his AM (3OLC) which was approved. With regards to the applicant’s request for the AM (4OLC – 8OLC), it is noted the applicant provided the proposed citations, in addition to eleven pages of his Individual Flight Record Reports and a TEMPO Management and Tracking System Individual Data, as well as an AM and Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) Mission Information Justification Sheet (USCENTAF Form 1) for justification. However, all four of the USCENTAF Form 1s are signed only by the applicant. According to USCENTAF, he has an incomplete package without a signature from the Operations Officer or Squadron Commander, and the Group Commander. Once the applicant has the USCENTAF Form l’s signed by the appropriate individuals, he can resubmit his request for consideration. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE finds no error or injustice in the applicant’s record in regards to the applicant’s request for the AM (4OLC – 8OLC) to be retroactively applied to his promotion consideration. The applicant was a non-select for promotion to technical sergeant (E- 6) during the 13E6 cycle. At that time, he received a score of 12 points for decorations [for his previously approved AM, w/3OLC]. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility date, and the date of the request for decoration, must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. If the award recommendations are approved by the appropriate individuals, this would not entitle the applicant to supplemental promotion consideration because the correction was not made prior to the promotion selection date of 16 Jul 13. Exceptions to the above policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed in military channels within the prescribed time limit and conclusive evidence the recommendation was not acted upon through loss or inadvertence. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes the position of OPR and argues he has gone above and beyond what should be required of an individual, when the AFCENT process of processing decorations is obviously broken. He has diligently obtained the requested mission information in accordance with AFCENT guidance and continues to make no progress through the proper channels at his base, Air Force Special Operations Command, his career field manager, and AFCENT. He refers back to his former commander’s letter, acknowledging the awards requested should have been approved. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has not 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. 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 find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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-2014-02607 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 14. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Nov 14. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Dec 14.