RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-00304

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
	
 	HEARING REQUESTED:  NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

He be awarded the Air Force Special Duty Ribbon.

RESUME OF THE CASE

On 31 Dec 90, the applicant retired in the grade of captain (O-3).  

On 12 Jan 18, the applicant submitted DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, requesting award of the Air Force Special Duty Ribbon and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA) with one Silver Oak Leaf Cluster (Exhibit A).

On 26 Dec 18, the AFBCMR staff notified the applicant that his requests were forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) for review and/or corrective action.  Based on foregoing, the applicant’s case was closed.  The applicant was also notified that if AFPC was unable to resolve his requests, APFC would resubmit his application to the AFBCMR (Exhibit C).

On 2 Oct 21, the Board received an AFPC/DP3SP advisory opinion stating they were able to verify award of the AFOUA with one Silver Oak Leaf Cluster and would administratively correct the applicant’s record.  In view of the applicant’s contention and concerns expressed in his 12 Jan 18 application, the AFBCMR staff reopened his case in order for the Board to consider the award of the Air Force Special Duty Ribbon (Exhibit D).  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) established the Air Force Special Duty Ribbon on 4 Sep 14, to recognize Airmen who successfully perform the challenge of a special duty assignment.  The applicant’s period of service was 10 Dec 80 thru 31 Dec 90, which was prior to the establishment of the Special Duty Ribbon or any other ribbon awarded for instructor duties.  There is no error/injustice as the SecAF did not authorize retroactive award of the Special Duty Ribbon.  Accordingly, the applicant does not meet the established criteria.  To grant the request would be contrary to the SecAF established criteria and AFMAN 36-2806 (or previous governing instructions/regulations).

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 26 Oct 21 for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.
2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, aside from the administrative correction to add the AFOUA with one Silver Oak Leaf Cluster to his record, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2018-00304 in Executive Session on 21 Apr 22.

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 18, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Letter, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 26 Dec 18.
Exhibit D:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 2 Oct 21.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 26 Oct 21.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.