SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1994-02702 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Airman’s Medal (AmnM) for heroism and be entitled to a 10 percent increase in retired pay. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 2 Apr 94, the applicant requested his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 27 Aug 89 through 30 Aug 90, be declared void and removed from his record; the overall rating on the EPR rendered for the period 31 Aug 90 through 30 Aug 91, be upgraded to a “5”; the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) awarded for the period 9 Nov 89 to 2 Nov 90 be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM); he be awarded the AmnM for heroism and be entitled to a 10 percent increase in retired pay; and receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant for promotion cycle 94A7. On 11 May 95, by a majority vote, the Board voted to grant the applicant’s stated requests with the exception of his decoration requests because the applicant had not exhausted all administrative remedies available for relief. For a full accounting of the facts surrounding his previous request and the rationale of the Board’s earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit M. By DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 97, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. He requested that be awarded the AmnM; consideration for a 10 percent increase in retired pay; upgrade of the AFCM awarded for the period 9 Nov 89 to 2 Nov 90 to the MSM. On 14 Oct 97, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration. For a full accounting of the facts surrounding his previous request and the rationale of the Board’s earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit N. On 6 Jul 01, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. On 15 Aug 01, it was determined that his request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration. By undated letter, the applicant submitted another request for reconsideration. On 10 Sep 01, this request was also denied because he did not submit evidence meeting the criteria for reconsideration. On 20 Nov 07, the applicant submitted another request for reconsideration. On 23 Apr 08, his request was again denied because he did not submit evidence meeting the criteria for reconsideration. By letter, dated 9 Jul 10, the applicant submitted another request for reconsideration. He stated the letter from then Airman K------ was new evidence which corroborated his assertion that the previous requested information had been provided to the squadron section commander and therefore he has exhausted all avenues of relief regarding his requests for the AmnM and a 10 percent increase in retired pay. On 19 Dec 11, the Board again denied his request for reconsideration and directed that his case remain closed. In his most recent request for reconsideration, dated 9 Dec 12, the applicant provides a letter from master sergeant K------, who stated that the applicant provided all the requested information for award of the AmnM; however, when he moved from Kunsan Air Base, Korea to Lajes Field, Protugal his replacement may not have done anything with the applicant’s award package. On 15 Jan 13, the applicant was notified that an additional advisory was required prior to presenting his case to the Board for a final decision. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment is at Exhibit S. The AmnM is awarded for voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those of conflict with an armed enemy of the US. The saving of a life or the success of the voluntary heroic act is not essential. Do not award for normal performance of duties. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit U. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALAUTION: SAF/MRBP recommends denial. MRBP states that there is an unsigned Recommendation for Decoration (DÉCOR 6) dated 22 Feb 96, a citation for the AmnM, a news article from a military newspaper and Sergeant C------‘s memo recounting the incident, there is nothing to substantiate the actions, such as witness statements. In addition, the memo provided by Sergeant K------ (formerly of the Security Forces Squadron (SFS) Orderly Room), does not give proof that the 8 SFS Commander endorsed the package or submitted the individual for award of the AmnM. Nor does Sergeant K------‘s memo address the existence of any witness statements. MRBP states that a sworn statement is needed from someone who witnessed the event and a memo or DÉCOR 6 from the applicant’s commander at the time of the event is needed. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit U. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALAUTION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Sep 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit V). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After again reviewing this application and the additional evidence provided in support of his appeal, we do not believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in the previous Board’s decisions. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of MRBP and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of the existence of either an error or injustice. Regrettably, additional discussion of this matter along the lines currently being pursued without new and relevant evidence to support the request will be filed without action. We regret this, but repeated use of staff resources on issues that have already been decided serves no useful purpose and unfairly diminishes our ability to address the concerns of other applicants. Absent judicial action, the Air Force considers this AFBCMR decision final. However, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701, et. Seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1491, Congress authorizes applicants to pursue final AFBCMR decisions through the U.S. Court of Claims or appropriate U.S. District Court. Those Federal Courts have the authority to set aside AFBCMR decisions if they find them to be arbitrary or capricious. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we again 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 Docket Number BC-1994-02702 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit M. Record of Proceedings, dated 25 Aug 95, w/atchs. Exhibit N. Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated 19 Nov 97, w/atchs. Exhibit O. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Aug 01. Exhibit P. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Sep 01. Exhibit Q. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Apr 08, w/atchs. Exhibit R. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Dec 11, w/atchs. Exhibit S. Email, Applicant, dated 9 Dec 12, w/atch. Exhibit T. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 15 Jan 13. Exhibit U. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 6 Sep 13. Exhibit V. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 6 Sep 13. Panel Chair 4