RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03756 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was recommended for the LOM prior to his retirement; however, the documentation was never properly processed. The LOM submission was submitted after his 1 Jun 07 retirement and without the required supporting documentation. His LOM package was put on administrative hold pending receipt of the required documentation. The package was completed and forwarded for processing on 11 Jan 08. In support of his request, applicant provides a copy of his retirement order, a Recommendation for Award of the LOM memorandum, a DÉCOR 6, an Awards Processing Checklist, an Exception to Policy (ETP) memorandum, and other unsigned documentation as evidence that he was recommended for the LOM. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired on 1 Jun 07, as a member of the Air Force Reserve, and was transferred to the Retired Reserve Section, awaiting pay at age 60. At the time of his retirement, he was assigned as Air Attaché, United States Defense Attaché Office (DAO), Beijing, China. In recognition of the applicant’s pending retirement on 1 Jun 07, he was nominated for award of the LOM while serving as Air Attaché in Beijing, China for the period of 1 Jun 03 – 31 May 07. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1K states as an exception to policy recommendation, they have no adequate basis to disagree with the decision of the applicant’s leadership to recommend him for the LOM upon his retirement. However, the proper procedure to be followed after all the supporting documentation is gathered is for the applicant’s unit to forward the LOM nomination package to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a Board decision on his LOM recommendation. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 Jun 09, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Deputy Director, SAFPC recommends denial. The Deputy Director, states based on the documentation provided by the applicant, the position not being a qualifying position, and an unsigned ETP memorandum, the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB) would have most likely disapproved the LOM. However, had all the required documentation with appropriate signatures affixed been provided, the ETP request would have likely been favorably considered. The period of service 1 Jun 03 – 31 May 07, sufficiently covers the 18-month requirement period for award of the LOM. IAW the Delegation of Approval Authority for Award of the Legion of Merit (LOM) to USAF Members message JAN 05, USAF members must serve a minimum of 18 months in a qualifying position. Nominations for the LOM which do not meet this criterion must be submitted as an ETP. The applicant’s position was not a qualifying position per the Jan 05 LOM message and an unsigned/undated ETP memorandum was included in the BCMR request documentation. The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 Aug 09, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Deputy Director, SAFPC and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the documentation provided by the applicant did not contain appropriate signatures and therefore, would not have been favorably considered by the AFDB. In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 Docket Number BC-2008-03756 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: XXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair XXXXXXXXX, Member XXXXXXXXX, Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-03756 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 20 Jun 09. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jun 09. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 24 Aug 09. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Aug 09.