RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03842 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to reflect award of the Air Force Commendation 
Medal (AFCM). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He earned the AFCM while serving on active duty in the Air Force 
from 18 Jun 73 to 1 Jun 80. 

 

He is not sure when, how, or where he earned his AFCM, but that a 
former supervisor denied the award due to his own personal bias. 

 

He was not given the chance to appeal the denial of his AFCM, nor 
see where and how he had earned the commendation. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served on active duty in the Air Force from 18 Jun 
73 to 10 May 86. 

 

AFPC/DPSID was able to verify the applicant’s entitlement to the 
Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM) and the Air Force 
Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA) and his DD Form 214 will be 
administratively corrected to reflect these medals. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that 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 Mar 58, 
shall have distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement 
and service. After a thorough of the applicant’s official 
military personnel record and provided documentation, they were 
unable to verify award of the AFCM. DPSID further states that 


the applicant has not exhausted all administrative avenues for a 
retroactive request for award of the AFCM. 

 

Retroactive recommendations for awards for individuals beyond the 
two-year time limitation must be submitted in accordance with 
Title 10, United States Code, Section 1130. The law allows for 
the submission of award recommendations (and upgrading of 
previously approved awards) without regard to any previously 
imposed time constraints for submission, if referred by a Member 
of Congress. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 23 Oct 12, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 
As of this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. We note the OPR advisory comments 
concerning the requirements of Title 10, United States Code, 
Section 1130 (10 U.S.C. § 1130), enacted as part of the Fiscal 
Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act. However, we do not 
agree that such avenues must be first exhausted prior to seeking 
relief under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1552. The relief 
offered under 10 U.S.C. § 1130 is a statutory remedy, not 
administrative relief. Therefore, principles of administrative 
law requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies are 
inapplicable here. Moreover, as previously noted by this Board 
in decisions concerning this issue, 10 U.S.C. § 1130 clearly 
states that, “Upon request of a member of Congress…the Secretary 
shall make a determination as to the merits of approving the 
award…” – however, it does not require that an applicant must do 
so prior to submitting a request under the provisions of 
10 U.S.C. § 1552. Finally, we find the OPR's interpretation of 
10 U.S.C. § 1130 contradicts the very intent of Congress in 
establishing service correction boards 65 years ago, i.e., to 
remove their required involvement and avid the continued use of 
private relief bills, in order to affect such corrections to 
military records. 

 

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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant’s records were thoroughly reviewed, however, no 
documentation was found nor did he provide any evidence to 


substantiate his eligibility for award of the AFCM. The 
applicant’s achievements are noted; however, the instruction 
governing awards and decorations states no individual is 
automatically entitled to a decoration. Other than his own 
assertions, he has not provided sufficient evidence which would 
persuade us that he should have been awarded the AFCM. In view 
of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no basis upon which to recommend granting the requested 
relief. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-03842 in Executive Session on 9 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Oct 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Oct 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair