RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03326

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) from Misawa AB, Japan.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The non-recommendation for award of a PCS decoration was a blatant injustice and was intended to derail his chances for promotion to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt, E-8).    

His rater non-recommended him for award of a PCS decoration and his unit leadership and chain of command concurred without objectively reviewing his records.  His first three Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) were endorsed by the senior rater and he never received any disciplinary actions or failed a physical training assessment.  There were no legitimate reasons for the decision.  It is not only an injustice for him but it is also an injustice for the airmen who saw how leadership treated airmen who were not in the “favorites” clique.  

In 2012, he filed a Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) complaint against a Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) because he put a noose on his desk.  This incident occurred after he confronted him on the way he was talking to and treating the airmen in his section.  There is zero tolerance in the Air Force against discrimination; however, the imposed disciplinary actions against the SNCO did not correlate to the severity of his racist actions.  

He has been treated differently (borderline reprisal actions) by his leadership and was set up for failure in performing his duties and career.  A case in point is that he had to fill in as the Operations Superintendent along with taking over the flight’s $13M operating budget with zero turnover a few months before the end of year closeout.  The previous budget manager deployed soon afterwards and he had no continuity or support.  He was also held accountable for the unit’s transformation, although status updates and meetings were never turned over to him.

He was given a mid-term feedback from his rater on 29 May 2014 which showed he exceeded expectations in all areas.  Just 29 days later on 27 June 2014, he was given an initial feedback by an officer who was never his rater.  He stated everyone gets equal treatment; however, exactly 34 days later on 31 July 2014, he was given an “intense heat of the moment” out-of-cycle rater directed feedback.  The feedback was more like a counseling session since others were in the room and per AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, feedback is supposed to be private communication between rater and ratee.  During the counseling feedback, he was told he did not meet expectations in most areas.  Furthermore, he pointed out things he felt were slacking while he was filling in as the superintendent, a position previously held by his rater.  Other personal bias comments were included to substantiate the assessment markings.  He was also threatened with Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions if he retaliated against two Technical Sergeants (TSgts, E-6) who he felt were outperforming him.  His predecessor and previous supervisor had the support of two officers to share his workload while he singlehandedly carried out his overwhelming assigned duties to the best of his abilities.  This is the aftermath of a set-up tactic.  

His EPR for the rating period of 2 September 2013 to 15 August 2014 was closed out with a senior rater endorsement as were his two previous EPRs.  On 10 December 2014, he was assigned a new supervisor who had a personal vendetta against him.  On 16 April 2015, he provided his supervisor supporting documents to assist in writing a PCS decoration while oblivious he would be non-recommended for an award.  He came close to making promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the 2015E8 promotion cycle.  Not having a PCS decoration is viewed negatively and will affect his board score.  His EPRs do not support a non-recommendation for award of a PCS MSM and the determination is personal and unjustifiable.  

On 22 July 2015, he received an e-mail from his rater that he would be scheduling a feedback session; this was 12 days before his PCS.  This was the only feedback he received for the reporting period.  He believes the imminent EPR will be doctored in a way to justify the non-recommendation for a PCS medal with concurrence of the squadron leadership even though he did not receive the required feedback during the last reporting period.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is in the Regular Air Force currently serving in the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt, E-7).

The applicant’s EPR (AF Form 911, effective 31 July 2015) for the rating period of 16 August 2014 to 30 September 2015, reflects the applicant was marked “Met all expectations” with final evaluator position of “Intermediate Evaluator.”  The EPR also reflects “Ratee refused to sign.”   

The MSM is awarded to any member of the United States Armed Forces, or to any member of the Armed Forces of a friendly foreign nation, for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or outstanding non-combat meritorious service to the United States.  Normally, the acts or services rendered must be comparable to that required for the Legion of Merit but in a duty of lesser though considerable responsibility.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denial.  According to AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, no member is automatically entitled to a decoration upon PCS, permanent change of assignment, retirement, separation, completion of a tour of duty or reaching/achieving other points at which a decoration may be recommended.  Supervisors must decide at these points if a decoration is appropriate.   DP2SP was unable to locate nor did the applicant provide official documentation verifying he was recommended for award of the MSM with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM w/1 BOLC).  Based on the e-mail traffic provided, it does appear at some point he was put in for a decoration and the process was halted.  Without more details from the original award approval authority as to why the applicant was no longer being considered for a decoration, DP2SP is unable to make a well informed opinion on the case.  It is unclear where the unsigned MSM w/1 BOLC citation came from, whether the applicant or someone in his chain of command completed it.  To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 May 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 and while we believe his performance as documented on his performance reports warranted consideration for an end of tour award; we find no evidence of an error or injustice for award of the MSM w/1 BOLC.  As pointed out by the Air Force OPR, an end of tour award is not an entitlement and supervisors and commanders determine if an end of tour award (to include the level of award) is appropriate.  In this respect, we give great deference to supervisors and commanders who being closer to the events are in the best position to determine if an award is appropriate.  Moreover, based on the evidence presented it appears the applicant was encouraged to engage with his flight commander on the status of his award.  However, there is no evidence to indicate whether the applicant pursued this recommendation.  Furthermore, we note the applicant states his supervisor had a vendetta against him, he was threatened with UCMJ actions and that he was the victim of borderline reprisal; however, no evidence has been presented to substantiate this to be the case.  In view of the above, we recommend the applicant contact his former chain of command to determine the status of his end of tour PCS medal.   Accordingly, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR 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 requested relief.

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-2015-03326 in Executive Session on 7 July 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 July 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 7 March 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 2016.