RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05824 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Prior to his 1 Jan 13 retirement, his unit contacted the 10th AF/CCE for guidance for processing a LOM for him. His wing commander approved the request but the 10th AF/CCE denied it because he was a squadron commander. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, Table 1.1, Note 5, this guidance was incorrect. The LOM was signed by the Vice Commander, 10th Air Force. In support of his request, the applicant submits a letter for an Exception to Policy (ETP) for award of the LOM, AFRC Form 30, AFRC Indorsement for Decorations; award recommendation, proposed citation and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The LOM may be awarded by the Secretary concerned to members of the United States Armed Forces, who after 8 Sep 39, have distinguished themselves by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service. The performance must have been such as to merit recognition of key individuals for service rendered in a clearly exceptional manner. Performance of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty, assignment, or experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for this award. For service rendered in peacetime, the term “key individual” applies to a narrower range of positions than would be the case in time of war and requires evidence of significant achievement. In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a special requirement or of an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner. However, justification of the award may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of important positions. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The May 09 award policy and award criteria message that was released Air Force wide provides the applicable regulation concerning award of the LOM. IAW Section 5B, a minimum of 18 months in a qualifying position is required. Section 5C states qualifying positions are wing/vice wing commanders, group commanders all types, major command directors and deputy directors (when the director is a general or flag officer), air staff division chiefs, and Air Force Mobility Command (AFMC) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) designated material wing and group leader positions. The applicant does not meet the criteria outlined in the May 09 award policy and criteria message; therefore, an ETP memorandum signed by someone within his direct chain of command is required. The criteria as outlined in the May 09 message has also been incorporated into the updated AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, dated 18 Dec 13. DPSID believes the applicant should be given consideration for a retirement decoration; however, in order for his request to be reasonably considered he will need to resubmit his request with an ETP memorandum signed by someone from his chain of command with first-hand knowledge of the act/achievement due to the applicant not meeting the criteria for award of the LOM as outlined in AFI 36-2803 and the May 09 message. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. SAF/MRBP recommends denial and concurs with the DPSID recommendation. Additionally, upon critical and thorough review of the narrative, the package did not meet the LOM criteria and did not provide adequate justification to overcome the ETP per AFI 36-2803, Table 3.1, Notes 1-7. Though commendable, the applicant’s actions as described in the nomination package did not reflect “accomplishments in line with performance in an extremely difficult duty that is performed in a clearly exceptional manner,” as defined in AFI 36-2803, Table 1.1., Note 7. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 Apr 14, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05824 in Executive Session on 30 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05824 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Mar 14. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 9 Apr 14 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 14.