RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03351 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOT-S). (Administratively Corrected) 2. He be awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement (NIAMOA). (Administratively Corrected) 3. The “V” device for Valor be added to his Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) he was awarded on 29 Mar 74. In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant requested award of the original request for the Bronze Star Medal (BSM), if he cannot be awarded the AFCM, w/V device. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be awarded the AFCM w/V device for his service in South East Asia (SEA} as an Airborne Targets Officer from 20 Feb 73 to 4 Feb 74. When he was reassigned from his unit in SEA, he was given a copy of the BSM write up for which he was being submitted for while assigned to a command and control squadron in Thailand. He was made aware that this was not an approved award, but merely provided as a courtesy and that it had to pass through the full review and approval process. His decoration submission had to pass from the wing level to the Numbered Air Force and was downgraded to an AFCM. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his AFCM award elements, the recommendation for the AFCM, the narrative, orders and various other supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available records, the applicant was relieved from active duty, on 31 Jul 02, in the grade of colonel. He was credited with 30 years and 17 days of active duty service for retirement. The applicant’s record will be corrected administratively to reflect award of the GWOT-S and the NIAMOA. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial of the applicant's request for award of the “V” device to the AFCM. The AFCM was awarded to the applicant on 29 Mar 74; the “V” device was not authorized for the AFCM until on or after 11 Jan 96. To grant the applicant relief would be contrary to the eligibility criteria established by AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program. In accordance with AFI 36-2803, Table 2-1, Note 22: award of the “V” device for a contingency deployment operation will be dependent upon the area of operation being declared a hostile environment by the Joint Chiefs of Staff: or hostile acts identified by the unified commander or higher authority. Award of the “V” device is based solely on the acts or services of individuals who meet the basic criteria of the AFCM, and who are exposed to personal hazards due to direct hostile action during a contingency deployment operation. For a single event, Air Force Component Commanders may authorize the “V” device when a single event, i.e., terrorist act, isolated combat-type incident, etc., warrants the “V” device distinction. The “V” device will not be awarded for normal peacetime acts or services. Award of the “V” device is authorized only for events or situations which occurred on or after 11 Jan 96. In accordance with DoDM 1348.33-V3, Military Awards Program, Enclosure 3, paragraph 10.(4): Members may accept decorations and awards awarded by Federal agencies; the Secretary concerned will determine if military members are authorized to wear Federal agency decorations and awards. In accordance with AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel, paragraph 11.5.44 Air Force members may wear United States nonmilitary decorations. It further provides an order of preference for nonmilitary decorations. According to paragraph 11.5.44.9., members may wear only those decorations and ribbons awarded by federal agencies and earned while in military service. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel records, DPSID was able to verify award of the GWOT-S and the NIAMOA. The complete DPSID is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He meets all the requirements cited in the DPSID letter and AFI 36-2803 for award of a "V" device to his AFCM with the exception of the 11 Jan 96 date. Specifically, the SEA Conflict was a declared hostile environment/conflict; the acts of service cited in his AFCM citation and original Bronze Star Medal (BSM) justification clearly meet the basic criteria for the AFCM. He was exposed to personal hazards due to direct hostile action during a contingency or conflict. He participated in Combat Operations against hostile enemy forces in SEA, to include the North Vietnamese, Pathet Lao, and Khmer Rouge. In the 1973-1974 timeframe there was no "V" device available for award along with an AFCM, and current AFI 36-2803 date guidelines may preclude prior-dated awards of a "V" device. However, he submits that his case would support the addition of a "V" device to the AFCM by the USAF today and requests either a waiver be granted to the date guidelines in AFI 36-2803 to allow award of the "V" device to his AFCM or that the original BSM justification be considered by the board. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice to warrant award of the AFCM, w/V. In this respect, we note that the applicant requests a waiver to the criteria for awarding the “V” device to his AFCM; however, he has not provided sufficient evidence that would warrant an exception to policy. We believe awarding the “V” device without sufficient evidence would be unfair to others similarly situated and establish a basis for circumventing the procedures in place. As such, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that relief beyond that granted administratively is not warranted. Regarding the applicant’s alternative request that the original BSM submission be considered. We reviewed the recommendation for decoration for the BSM submitted by the applicant; however, in our opinion, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to persuade us that the decision to downgrade it to the AFCM was in error or unjust. Therefore, we find no basis to favorably consider this portion of the application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03351 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member Although Ms. Barger chaired the panel, in view of her unavailability, Mr. Kearney has signed as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Sep 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Nov 13. Acting Panel Chair