RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-02986

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her revoked Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCOM) with inclusive dates 29 Mar 05 to 4 Aug 10 be reinstated.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The removal of her 2010 AFCOM is unjust due to the events that led up to the removal of the decoration.  In May 2018, she was selected for promotion to master sergeant (E-7), but after her selection, AFPC had discovered that her 2010 AFCOM had been revoked and her promotion was withheld.  However, she contends that the AF FM 973, Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, that revoked her 2010 AFCOM, was unsigned and not processed in accordance with AFI 33-321, Authentication of Air Force Records.  In addition, according to AFI 36-2502, Enlisted Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs section 2.7.3.14, AFPC had 10 days to scrub her record and notify her of the error, but instead it took 48 days.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a regular Air Force technical sergeant (E-6). 

On 3 May 10, an AFCOM citation, provided by the applicant, indicates that she received the award for meritorious service from 29 Mar 05 to 4 Aug 10.  

On 4 Jun 10, AF FM 973, Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, states “AFCOM (B), SO #GA-417, 3 May 2010 is being revoked due to facts, later determined, would have prevented original approval of award.” However, it appears that the issuing/approving authority was signed on behalf of the commander and missing the statement “for the commander.”  Furthermore, the military personnel section chief did not properly authenticate the form via signature.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP3SP, recommends denying the application. An erroneous decoration was identified in the applicant’s official military personnel record during the 2018 promotion validation process.   While the AFCOM was in the applicant’s official promotion file, her file also included an AF FM 973, which revoked the original AFCOM.  Accordingly, AFPC contacted the applicant’s former commander and the original AFCOM approving authority who stated:

	“This reaffirms the appropriateness of [the applicant’s] 2010 Revocation of an earlier 	recommended Air Force Commendation Medal while assigned to the 20th Medical 	Group, Shaw AFB, SC.  I contacted [the applicant’s] supervisor, to confirm the 	underlying facts regarding [the applicant’s] multiple PT failures while assigned to the 	20th Medical Group, Shaw AFB, SC.  Also contacted earlier today the then 20th Fighter 	Wing Command Chief, confirming the then 20th Fighter Wing’s policy regarding the 	impact of an NCO’s PT failure by generally denying the award of an Air Force 	Commendation Medal (AFCOM) to an NCO, in the absence of extraordinary 	circumstances (e.g., an exemplary NCO with multiple Wing awards and a single 	PT 	failure during their tour of duty at the 20th Fighter Wing, Shaw AFB, SC). The Wing 	Command Chief confirmed that [the applicant’s] PT failure(s) would not have 	qualified her for the Wing’s Award of an AFCOM, that [the applicant’s] revocation order 	was appropriate, and all levels of leadership does not recommend reconsideration. After 	carefully reviewing and considering the facts, [the applicant’s] revocation of an earlier 	recommended Air Force Commendation Medal while assigned to the 20th Medical 	Group, Shaw AFB, SC, is affirmed as appropriate, 	without any recommendation for 	reconsideration.”

Based on DoDM 1348.33 and AFI 36-2803, Air Force Military and Awards Program (now AFMAN 36-2806) the original approving authority is authorized to revoke a decoration if later it is determined that the individual’s “…entire service during or after the time of the distinguished act, achievement, or service has not been honorable; with “honorable” being defined as the characterization of one’s conduct to be that of honest and faithful service according the standards of conduct, courage, and duty required by law and customs of the service of a member of the grade to whom the standard is applied.”  In addition, AFI 36-2803, para 1.15.5 states “Each decoration prescribes standards which define the degree and magnitude of an act, achievement, or service considered worthy for awarding that particular decoration. Do not base award of a specific decoration upon a member’s grade, but on the member’s level of responsibility, achievements, accomplishments, and manner of performance.”

Accordingly, the original approving authority determined the applicant’s level of performance did not warrant the award of the AFCOM and therefore revoked the award.

In conclusion, due to multiple Physical Fitness failures, which was a standard at the time, the approval authority determined that the applicant’s performance did not warrant award of the AFCOM and therefore revoked the medal.  To grant relief would be circumventing the original approving authority and the local leadership whom was in the best position to observe the applicants’ performance.  In addition, to grant relief would be an injustice to other individuals, which met the required standard and was award this medal.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 27 Jul 20 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 27 Aug 20.  In her response, the applicant contends that her claim is not about the commander’s intent to revoke her decoration, but about the unsigned AF FM 973, which was also mislabeled in her military personnel record.  She goes onto state that the injustice is the events that led up to the removal of her decoration and the multiple administrative mistakes made by her servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF), which have been detrimental to her career.  

In addition, the applicant now requests that her line number be reinstated and she receive back pay from her original 1 Aug 18 master sergeant (E-7) pin-on date.

In support of her rebuttal, the applicant provides copies of AFI references regarding the proper way to authenticate personnel records and the notification timelines for verification of promotion, copies of the AF FM 973 that were not properly signed, and e-mails regarding her records in PRDA and her promotion being withheld.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  While the Board notes the applicant’s contentions, it does not change the fact that her AFCOM was revoked and the approval authority has reaffirmed that decision.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2019-02986 in Executive Session on 18 Nov 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 May 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 27 Jul 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 27 Jul 20.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 27 Aug 20.

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