RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01910 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Air Force Commendation Medal Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM w/4OLC) be upgraded to reflect a Meritorious Service Medal Third Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM w/3OLC). Her AFCM w/4OLC be removed from her records immediately if not timely replaced with a MSM w/3OLC. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her awarded AFCM w/4OLC is not the decoration her supervisor recommended her to receive. Furthermore, valuable information was left out of the citation. It was her supervisor’s intent to submit a MSM on her behalf. Yet, some malicious folks at the top have targeted her for no reason. She filed an Inspectors General (IG) complaint and the investigations are underway. 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 major (O-4). On 17 September 2014, the applicant was awarded an AFCM w/4OLC for meritorious service for the period of 17 October 2011 to 1 September 2014. On 12 January 2015, the applicant contacted the 37th Training Wing (TRW) Inspector General (IG) alleging her supervisor informed her that a draft MSM was prepared on her behalf; however, it was downgraded for unknown reasons. The applicant indicated she requested a copy of the draft MSM, but the squadron refused to provide it or tell her who or why the MSM was removed. Her current command encouraged her to file an IG complaint. The applicant was informed of the IG Complaints Resolution Process (CRP) and that her issue was more appropriate for command channels. The applicant did not file a complaint within five days; as such the issue was closed. On 19 February 2015, the applicant contacted the 37th TRW/IG indicating that she did not file a complaint because she wanted to work towards a resolution with her chain of command. However, since she felt her squadron commander was untruthful about her supervisor’s decision to give her a MSM, and no resolution was in sight, she decided to file a complaint of unfair/unjust treatment. Specifically, she indicated that her former supervisor drafted a MSM that was later downgraded to an AFCM by others without reason, cause, or her former supervisor’s knowledge. When the applicant inquired about the MSM downgrade, one of the flight commanders lied to her about being aware of the downgrade. The applicant later learned the flight commander was the individual who signed the Décor 6 downgrading the MSM to an AFCM. In addition the squadron commander told the applicant that her supervisor indicated that she did not stand by her decision to write a MSM on the applicant’s behalf. However, the applicant stated she had a memorandum for record (MFR) from her supervisor indicating that she did deserve a MSM, which is contradictory to what she was told by her squadron commander. It was noted the squadron and group commander were recently removed from their positions. Nevertheless, the applicant was once again informed that her issue was not appropriate for the IG system and would be referred to her chain of command for resolution. On 12 March 2015, the applicant contacted the 37th TRW/IG regarding not receiving a response to her complaint and inquired as to the need of informing her chain of command that she was going to file a congressional inquiry because of their unresponsiveness. She was informed that a response was forwarded to her on 6 March 2015; however, it will be sent again. Nevertheless, the applicant was informed that a command receiving a compliant had 30 days to respond and the response to her complaint was well within the timeline of 30 days. The conclusion of the review was that the MSM was never downgraded since it was not signed/endorsed by the recommending and higher official in the chain of command. The inquiry revealed the applicant was awarded an AFCM based on her record and was well within the commander’s authority. There was no evidence of an injustice. On 30 March 2015, the applicant contacted the 37th TWW/IG to inquire as to whether or not it was appropriate for her compliant referred into command channels to be reviewed by an individual that was part of the decision process of downgrading her medal. She was advised that the medal technically was not downgraded and it was the group commander’s decision to award her an AFCM vice a MSM. Also, an inquiry officer outside the unit/squadron was appointed for an independent look. She was advised to pursue applying to the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). On 6 April 2015, the applicant contacted the Air Education and Training Command Inspector General (AETC/IG), indicating she received an AFCM instead of a MSM end of tour medal for her previous assignment, as recommended by her previous supervisor who had a permanent change of station several months prior to her own permanent change of station. AETC/IG reviewed the applicant’s complaint to include the other related IG cases and determined her complaint was identical to her previously addressed complaint. The applicant was informed to submit a petition to the AFBCMR, as the AFCM is a matter of record and cannot be changed without the AFBCMR’s direction. Specifically, she was informed the previous instructions she was given by command were correct and most appropriate for her situation. Additionally, she was informed that she could request an additional review from the next level of her former command chain, with the caveat that should the MSM be supported; a supporting memorandum with a recommendation could be submitted with her AFBCMR application. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends the board make a decision based on the merits of the case. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, they were unable to verify upgrade of the AFCM w/4OLC to the MSM w/3OLC. The MSM is awarded to any member of the United States Armed Forces, or to any member of the Armed Forces of a friendly foreign nation, for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or outstanding non-combat meritorious service to the United States. Normally the acts or services rendered must be comparable to that required for the Legion of Merit but in a duty of lesser though considerable responsibility. The applicant was awarded the AFCM w/4OLC per Special Order G-95, dated 17 September 2014, for outstanding service during the inclusive period of 17 October 2011 to 1 September 2014. She provided what appears to be a copy of the original Décor 6 dated 29 July 2014 showing she was recommended for award of the MSM w/3OLC. She also provided what appears to be a copy of the original Décor 6 also dated 29 July 2014 showing she was recommended for the AFCM w/4OLC. The provided Décor 6 for the MSM w/3OLC was signed by the applicant's supervisor on 19 August 2014 but was not endorsed by the applicant's commander; therefore, it is not considered to have been placed into official channels. The provided Décor 6 for the AFCM w/4OLC was signed by the same supervisor and was endorsed by the commander. The applicant provided a memorandum from her supervisor dated 4 February 2015, stating she was contacted by the 383rd Commander on 15 September 2014 asking her if she thought the applicant deserved a MSM, in which she replied in the affirmative. Also, the applicant provided a three and a half page memorandum compilation from 10 unnamed individuals who had been in the service from 5-27 years who feel passionate about the injustice of the downgrade of the applicant's decoration and provided a story of unexplained bias and possible retaliation against the applicant. It goes on to imply the award was downgraded because it alluded to the applicant’s fitness failure and that she had been counseled by her supervisor. However, the applicant’s supervisor indicated the applicant passed her fitness standards and there were no derogatory remarks in the applicant's personnel information folder when she left. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 November 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 an error or injustice with respect to the upgrade of the applicant’s AFCM w/4OLC to a MSM w/3OLC. The applicant’s complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions duly noted; however, in our view, the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) has conducted a thorough review of the evidence of record and addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with their opinion that there is no verifiable evidence that the applicant’s AFCM w/4OLC should be upgraded to a MSM w/3OLC. While the applicant contends it was her former supervisor’s intent to submit a MSM on her behalf, it was not submitted and approved through official channels. A recommendation is placed in official channels when the recommending official signs the recommendation (DÉCOR 6 and justification) and a higher official in the nominee’s chain of command endorses it. In this case, the AFCM w/4OLC was the decoration which was submitted and approved through official channels. 4.  We noted the applicant’s request for her AFCM w/4OLC to be removed from her records immediately if not timely replaced with a MSM w/3OLC; however, this request is outside the purview of the Board. The Board’s charter extends solely to the correction of records. As such, the Board will take no action in this regard to this request. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 5.  The applicant contends she filed an (IG) complaint in regards to the issues surrounding the submission of a MSM on her behalf, which was later downgraded to an AFCM. As noted above, the applicant’s complaint was investigated by the IG and it was determined the commander’s actions to approve an AFCM was well within his authority and there was no evidence of an injustice. We reviewed the complete evidence of record and based upon our own independent review, and we conclude the applicant was not the victim of an error or injustice. Moreover, the applicant was advised that she could request an additional review from the next level of her former command chain, with the caveat that should the MSM be supported; a supporting memorandum with a recommendation could be submitted with her AFBCMR application. The file is absence such documentation. 6.  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 our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-01910 in Executive Session on 13 January 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01910 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 April 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 10 August 2015. Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 November 2015. Exhibit E.  Inspector General (IG) Complaint – WITHDRAWN.