ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02624

  	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), ending 15 Nov 10, be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM).

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 25 Mar 15, the Board considered and denied a request for correction of military records submitted by the applicant, finding that he had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.  There was no supporting documentation from the award originators to support upgrading his MSM.  Specifically, the AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration, dated 13 Sep 10, clearly indicates the applicant was intentionally recommended for the MSM (it was not downgraded from a BSM) and is signed by two officers in his direct chain of command.  For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.

On 23 Sep 16, the applicant requested reconsideration of his original request to upgrade his MSM to a BSM.  As new evidence, he provides statements from his Vice Commander and Command Chief in support of his request, which he believes affirms that his actions merit being awarded the BSM.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends denying the application.   The applicant was able to obtain a statement from his Vice Commander who notes that  he was in the applicant’s chain-of-command during the awards period.  However, the Vice Commander was not the recommending official or the Commander as listed on AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration.

While the applicant may have felt his actions met the criteria for the BSM, the recommending officials did not.  His chain of command, to include the 438 AEW/CC, felt an MSM was the appropriate recognition for his actions.  MRBP finds no evidence that supports overturning the 438 AEW/CC and USAFCENT's decision.  Additionally, the new information submitted for review does not validate the applicant’s belief that his supervision submitted an MSM because it was easier than submitting a BSM.   AF IMT 3994 that was signed by a Brigadier General recommending award of the MSM contradicts the Vice Commander and Command Chief’s statements that his duties were in-line with what command at the time would have submitted as a BSM.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit I.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 27 Jun 18 and 10 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibits J), and the applicant responded on 30 Jul 18.  In response, the applicant provides clarification regarding his assertion that his BSM was downgraded to a MSM.  He notes that his assertion was not accurate; however, the injustice happened when the award submission was submitted.  

The USCENTAF Decoration Guidebook, dated 27 Dec 04, states in part that “the MSM is awarded for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or service to the United States.”  The BSM is governed by Executive Order 11046, which authorizes the Secretary of a Military Department to award the BSM to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguishes himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight; while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  

He  met all of the requirements for the BSM rather than the peacetime or non-combat related MSM.  His MSM recommendation speaks to his convoy operations and him being a convoy commander.  Those actions were in no way considered “Non-Combat!”  He has provided proof in the form of a letter from his Vice Wing Commander who had first-hand knowledge of these events.  The letter stated, “I am unsure how Sergeant P’s award recommendation passed by me without it being a BSM recommendation.”  It is crazy to him that people who were stationed in Qatar during the same time period that he was and were consistently in harm’s way in Afghanistan received BSMs for their service, yet he received a MSM. 

The complete response is at Exhibit K.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice and therefore finds no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  The Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of SAF/MRBP and adopts the rationale expressed as the basis for their conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issue involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2014-02624 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 18 and 17 Aug 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit G:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-F, dated 4 Apr 15.
Exhibit H:	Application, Recon DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 23 Sep 16.
Exhibit I:	Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBP, dated 16 Mar 18. 
Exhibit J:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 27 Jun 18 and 
	      10 Jul 18.
Exhibit K: Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 30 Jul 18.

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