RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01557 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His “non-recommendation” for award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be changed to “recommend.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He never received any negative paperwork or an explanation from his leadership as to why he was non-recommended for the decoration. He displayed meritorious service during his entire 3-year assignment at Yokota Air Base (AB), Japan. During that time, he earned the John L. Levitow, leadership award while attending Airman Leadership School, his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree, recognition as Airman of the Year of his squadron, and noncommissioned officer (NCO) of the month while deployed. In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his enlisted performance reports for the period in question and the non-selection for the decoration. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Staff Sergeant, E-5. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant was being considered for the decoration for permanent change of station. The applicant provided a Decor 6, Recommendation for Decoration, for the Air Force Commendation Medal for meritorious achievement from 30 May 2008 through 29 May 2011. The Decor 6, in which the applicant was not recommended for award of the Air Force Commendation Medal, was signed by the Logistics Readiness Squadron Flight Commander and endorsed by the Logistics Readiness Squadron Commander. In accordance with AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, paragraph 2.2.6, “no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an operation temporary duty or departure for an assignment.” While there appears to be no blemish on the applicants record, it appears there is no error or injustice with this request as the applicant was considered and a decision was determined that the his performance, while commendable, did not warrant the approval of an Air Force Commendation Medal. Should the applicant wish to pursue the Air Force Commendation Medal, the applicant should appeal to the original approval authority, for consideration. The AFCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force after 24 March 1958, shall have distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement and service. The degree of merit must be distinctive, though it need not be unique. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. In further support of his request, the applicant reiterated his previous contention that he displayed meritorious service during his 3-year assignment to Yokota AB Japan and provided additional information. Among other achievements, he highlighted his responsibilities as trainer for unit airman on various aspects of hazardous material (HAZMAT) handling as it relates to vehicle maintenance. He also volunteered his time to help the Red Cross, participated in the base Toastmaster club, picked up trash around the local community, volunteered for an extended deployment, as well as performed additional tasks for his squadron, one of which led to an “Outstanding” rating. 2. The applicant further states, in the last few months of his assignment an 8.9 magnitude earthquake struck the country and a humanitarian support mission was established to help the affected. During this time, he assisted as an Augmentee with flightline security and was the NCOIC for cargo security. He was away from his shop performing these duties for nearly a month and feels the new squadron commander, flight chief and flight commander were not afforded the chance to really get to see his record and see all of his accomplishments. Had they had the time to look at what he had contributed and accomplished, not just for himself, but also for his flight, his squadron and even the base they would have recommended him for this medal. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 careful notice of the applicant’s complete submission in support of his request and we are not persuaded that he should be awarded the AFCM. His contentions in this regard are noted; however, in our opinion, the Air Force office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed these contentions and we are in agreement with its recommendation. While the applicant may believe he is deserving of the AFCM, sufficient evidence has not been provided which would persuade us that the commander acted inappropriately in deciding not to award him the AFCM or that his decision represented an abuse of discretionary authority in making that decision. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 this application in Executive Session on 7 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01557: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 March 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 May 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 August 2013. 1 2