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