RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02371

	COUNSEL: 

  	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The provided recommendation for award of the Air Force Commendation Medal, with One Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, w/1 OLC) for the inclusive period of 5 Feb 10 to 16 Jul 12 be approved.

He be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant for Cycle 16E7.     

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for award of the AFCM in 2012; however, due to an administrative oversight the decoration was not processed.    He provides a signed AFCM certificate and letters of support.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a master sergeant in the Regular Air Force.   

The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for the inclusive period of 13 Aug 10 to 15 Feb 11 from United States Forces-Iraq.  

The applicant provides a letter of support from his then squadron commander dated 17 Jan 17, which states he submitted the applicant for award of the AFCM for the period of Feb 10 to Jul 12 in  2012 and was informed that the decoration was approved and mailed to his new squadron.  He received no indication that it had not been processed and fully supports correction of the administrative oversight.  

The applicant provides a letter of support from the award authority dated 4 May 17 which states she fully supports award of the AFCM and that it be backdated to 17 Jul 12.  During the period of Feb 10 to Jul 12, he received top marks on all performance reports and fitness testing and exceeded expectations and standards of performance and personal conduct during his tour.  As his commander during the award period, she fully supports award of the AFCM and provides a signed AFCM backdated to 17 Jul 12 as she would have done had the award made it to her desk.  The Air Force owes it to the applicant to resolve this oversight.  

AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program, para 2.8.1, states decoration recommendations that were placed into official channels within the prescribed time limits (within 2 years and award within 3 years of the act, achievement or service performed) but no award was made due to the original recommendation being lost, not processed or acted upon due to administrative error may be considered for resubmission through the original decoration channels. Reconsideration is contingent on the presentation of credible evidence the recommendation was officially placed in military channels or was submitted, but not acted on through loss or inadvertence.  

Effective with Cycle 15E7, MSgt eligibles started meeting senior noncommissioned officer selection boards.  

The military personnel data system (MilPDS) show his total score for Cycle 16E7 was 473.93 and the cutoff score required for promotion was 481.45.  The AFCM is worth 3 points; however, the citation would also be considered by the selection board.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denial.  The applicant has not exhausted administrative means by working with the award approval authority.  The applicant needs to address this issue with the award approval authority prior to requesting relief through the BCMR.    The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 14 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant did not exhaust all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.  The Board does not consider applications without documentation showing exhaustion of such avenues of relief.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant provides copies of a signed certificate and letter of support from his commander at the time, we note he has provided no evidence he has exhausted the available administrative relief provided in AFI 36-2803 for award to the AFCM w/1 OLC.  In view of this, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Since we find no reason to recommend approval of the AFCM w/1 OLC, we find no reason to grant the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration for Cycle 16E7.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  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 issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of documentary evidence indicating that such avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.

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-2017-02371 in Executive Session on 15 May 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 12 May 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 24 Jan 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 14 Mar 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.