RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00918 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be advanced to the grade of airman first class (A1C) on the date he enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF). 2.  His records be corrected to show he was awarded the Air Medal (AM). 3.  His records be corrected to show he was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was supposed to be promoted to A1C when he transferred from the Arizona Army National Guard to the RegAF. In addition, he was supposed to receive an AM. The AFCM is awarded after 20 years of honorable service; however, he did not receive an AFCM. He also discusses some of his military experiences and racial encounters. In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, his NGB Forms 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service in the Army National Guard of the United States and the Army National Guard of Arizona; his DD Forms 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge and a copy of his retirement orders. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 November 1956, the applicant enlisted on active duty in the RegAF in the grade of airman basic. Effective 31 October 1976, he retired in the grade of technical sergeant after serving 20 years and 25 days of active service. The AM is awarded for single acts of heroism or meritorious achievements while participating in aerial flight in actual combat in support of operations. Required achievement is less than that required for the Distinguished Flying Cross, but must be accomplished with distinction above and beyond that expected of professional airmen. It is not awarded for peace time sustained operational activities and flights. Approval or disapproval authority is delegated to major command commanders or vice commanders. MAJCOMs will identify the missions and positions that qualify for this award. HQ USAF/XO must certify MAJCOM criteria. The AFCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force after 24 March 1958, have distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement and service. The degree of merit must be distinctive, though it need not be unique. Acts of courage which do not involve the voluntary risk of life required for the Soldier's Medal may be considered for the AFCM. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states there is nothing in the applicant’s records or the guidance that could be located from that timeframe to indicate he was entitled an advanced grade above airman basic. DPSOA recommends the case be dismissed under the Defense of Laches. His unreasonable delay regarding a matter dating back to 1956 has greatly complicated DPSOA’s ability to determine the merits of his request. There is no evidence to support a grade advancement and the request was not submitted within the required time lines. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states there is no special order, recommendation, proposed citation or other evidence provided by the applicant or located in his official military personnel file to support he was submitted for the AM or the AFCM. Based on the guidelines of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (FY96 NDAA), DPSOA is unable to verify his entitlement to either the AM or AFCM. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 June 2009 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us that the former member's service records should be corrected to show he was promoted to any grade higher than what is reflected in his military records. Further, we find no evidence which would persuade us that his records should be corrected to show he was awarded any of the requested awards. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 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 an 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 the application. _______________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2009-00918 in Executive Session on 21 July 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2009-00918 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 February 2009, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 24 April 2009. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 12 May 2009. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 June 2009. Panel Chair 4