! 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

OCT 2 8 1998 

DOCKET NUMBER: 96-00137 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

RESUME OF CASE: 
In a application dated 2  January 1996,  applicant requested that 
he be awarded the Purple Heart  (PHI for injuries sustained while 
he was deployed to Saudi Arabia  in support of Operations Desert 
Storm/Shield (DS/S) . 
On 31 October 1996,  the Board considered and denied applicant's 
request,  indicating that  applicant's injuries did  not  meet  the 
criteria for award of the PH.  A complete copy of the Record of 
Proceedings is at Exhibit F. 
In  a  letter to  his  Senator dated  23  July  1997,  the  applicant 
provided a witness' statement from his supervisor at the time and 
asked that he be awarded the PH.  His letter was forwarded to the 
AFBCMR as a matter coming under its purview on 20 October 1997. 
Applicant's complete reconsideration request, with attachment, is 
at Exhibit G. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's 
submission, a majority  of  the  Board  is not  persuaded  that  the 
applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. 
The witness supervisor raises comparisons between the applicant's 
situation  and  the  circumstances  pertaining  to  the  Blackhawk 
shootdown as justification for awarding the PH to the applicant. 
Presumably the applicant agrees with these contentions since he 
provided  the supporting statement as new evidence. However, the 
award of the PH in 1995 for the Blackhawk incident was a decision 
made by the Secretary of Defense and we are not privy to the in- 
depth rationale surrounding that decision as it was not a matter 
coming under our purview. In any event, a majority of this Board 
is not persuaded  that  the parameters of  the  PH criteria can be 
expanded  to  include the  applicant's injury.  In this  regard, as 
explained in the original conclusions, at the  t i m e   of his injury 
in  1991,  the applicant was engaged  in detonating cluster bombs 
jettisoned days earlier by a battle-damaged American F-16. At the 

time of his injury,  he was not involved in an action against a US 
enemy or with an American ally and an opposing armed force, and 
there were no hostilities involving an international peacekeeping 
force and no terrorist attack. Therefore, a majority of the Board 
concludes  the  PH  criteria  was  not  met  in  this  case  even  if 
applied in a broader sense. We commend and respect the applicant 
for  performing  his  duty  in  an  outstanding  manner  and  at 
significant  personal  cost; however,  in view  of  the  above, the 
majority  finds  no  basis  upon  which  to  overturn  the  original 
Panel's conclusion that this request should be denied. 
The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give 
the  Board  a  clear  understanding  of  the  issues  involved  and  a 
personal  appearance, with  or  without  legal  counsel, would  not 
have  materially  added  to  that  understanding.  Therefore,  the 
request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: 
A majority of the panel  finds insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 23  March  and  17  September 1998,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman 111, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 

By  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended  denial  of  the 
application.  Mr. Beaman voted  to grant but he does not wish to 
submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was 
considered: 

Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 2 Dec 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit G.  Applicant's Letter, dated 23 Jul 97  (received 

20 Oct 971, w/atchs. 

( 

Panel Chair 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-00137 
COUNSEL: None 
HEARING DESIRED: Yes 

APPTlICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

He be awarded the Purple Heart  (PH). 

: 

APPJlICANT  CONTENDS 
Inaction by AFMPC prevented proper boarding of the PH nomination. 
After  forcing  the  AFMPC  PH  board  to  review  the  case,  the 
nomination was denied based on subjective award criteria, i .e. , 
"battle incident , "  "direct enemy action, "  by people distant from 
the situation. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

Applicant  is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force in the 
grade  of  master  sergeant, with  a  date  of  rank  of  1 May  1996. 
During  the  period  in  question,  applicant  was  assigned  to  the 
377th  Explosive  Ordnance  Disposal  (EOD)  Squadron  as  an  EOD 
technician  and  was  deployed  from  Ramstein  to  Saudi  Arabia  in 
support of Operations Desert Storm/Shield. 
On  27  February  1991, an  F-16  returning  from  Iraq  with  battle 
damage declared an in-flight emergency (IFE) , requested immediate 
landing, and jettisoned four CBU 87's  (cluster bombs) somewhere 
near the base. A  standoff munitions disruption  (SMUD) procedure 
to destroy the bomblets commenced on 3  March 1991. 
On  4  March  1991, while  detonating  the  cluster bombs  from  the 
field, applicant was  wounded by  a high-speed  fragment from  the 
exploding ordnance. The  fragment hit  him  in the  left wrist  and 
forearm, resulting in an open fracture, and then struck his flack 
jacket  over his  heart  area. Applicant  was  attended  by  the  on- 
scene  medic  and  then  evacuated  to  the  114  Army  Hospital.  He 
underwent surgery on 7 March 1991. 
By  message dated  15 March  1991, applicant's  deployed unit, the 
4410 OSW,  informed AFMPC/DPCM of applicant's casualty status. On 
19 March  1991, AFMPC responded to his deployed unit, indicating 

that  the  wound  was  not  "battle"  incident,  did  not  meet  the 
criterion for the PH, and no further action would be taken. 
On 20 March 1991, applicant's injury was found to be LOD. 
In  a  7 July  1992  letter  to  AFMPC/DPMASA,  the  6510 Test  Wing 
(AFMC) commander requested formal reconsideration for the PH. He 
stated  he  was  personally  familiar  with  the  operation  that 
resulted in applicant's  wounds and felt the decoration was fully 
justified. In a combat support role, applicant was wounded as a 
result of enemy action. The  commander added that in the modern, 
high-tech wars  represented by  Desert  Storm,  the  lines  between 
combat and combat support are frequently blurred. 
By  message  dated  31 August  1994, applicant's  unit  at  the  time 
queried AFMPC regarding the status of the reconsideration of the 
award of the PH. 
On  7 December 1994, the PH Review Board  denied his request for 
the  award,  stating  that  the  documentation  furnished  on  his 
behalf, in accordance with established criteria, did not provide 
conclusive evidence that his injury was a direct result of enemy 
action.  Since  his  injuries  were  a  result  of  indirect  enemy 
action, award of the PH was not warranted. 

A I R   STAFF EVALUATION: 
The NCOIC, Special Trophies &  Awards, AFPC/DPPPRS, reviewed this 
appeal and states that the PH is awarded for wounds received as a 
direct--not indirect--result of  enemy actions  (i.e., gunshot or 
shrapnel wounds, hand-to-hand combat wounds, or forced aircraft 
bailout injuries). It is necessary that the wound require/receive 
medical  treatment.  Indirect  injuries  include,  but  are  not 
restricted to: disease; exposure; injury incurred as a secondary 
effect  of  enemy  action;  wounds,  injuries,  diseases  or  death 
incurred  by  and/or  resulting  from  brutalities,  negligence  or 
forced labor  inflicted by  enemy  action while  in a  POW  status. 
Based  on  the  information  provided  and  the  PH  criteria  listed 
above, DPPPRS recommends denial of applicant's request. 

A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT S RE VIEW OF AIR STAFF EVATtUATION: 
Applicant reviewed the Air Staff evaluation and argues that AFPC 
officials  put  forth  "criteria"  as  if  it  were  "Biblical 
Scripture,"  failing  to  explain  that  it  is  anything  more  than 
their opinion.  It  should be  noted for the record the opinions 
they  espouse  aren't  based  on  any  substantive  reference,  i.e., 
official  policy  letter,  Air  Force  Instruction,  or  any  other 
official DOD  document, and  no  references  are  included  in  t h e  
opinions  or  decisions  they  have  given  him  in  the  past  or 

forwarded to  [the Board]  for consideration. Nowhere  in AFI  36- 
2 8 0 3 ,   or AFR  900 - 48  at  the  time  of  the  incident, is  the  term 
\'direct result of enemy action" used as a determining factor for 
award  of  the  PH. AFI  36-2803  (DOD Manual  1348.33-M)  addresses 
four broad  situations in which  an American warfighter might  be 
found in: 

enemies. 

a.  Hostilities between the US and one of its enemies. 
b.  Hostilities  between  an  ally  of  the  US  and  one of  their 
c.  Hostilities involving US service members who are part of an 
d.  As a result of a terrorist attack. 

international peacekeeping force. 

It  is loosely written with great intention.  Specific instances 
where award of the PH is warranted are deliberately avoided.  To 
do  so would  inject  a  measure  of  subjectivity into  a situation 
where  an  on-scene  commander's  objectivity  is  required. 
Subjectivity is  the pitfall of  DPPPRS'  position concerning his 
case. Authoritative references show the intent with which the AFI 
36-2803 and its predecessors were written and prove the validity 
of his claim.  The strict, binding rules AFPC  \\criteria" places 
on  battle  situations  are,  by  definition,  impossible.  AFPC's 
references  to  "hand-to-hand combat  would"  and  "forced aircraft 
bailout  injuries" are not applicable to  the modern battlefield, 
are  not  compatible  with  Air  Force  doctrine,  and  alienate  a 
significant percentage of Air Force specialties from eligibility 
for the PH. Furthermore, AFPC is inconsistent in applying award 
criteria. His deployed unit was awarded the Air Force Outstanding 
Unit Award with  'V"  device.  The  'V"  device is included if  the 
award is for meritorious service or outstanding achievement in a 
combat area. Thus, on one hand AFPC states he was attached to a 
recognized combat area or unit but, on the other hand, he's  not 
eligible for the PH because he wasn't  in a combat area or unit. 
He implores the Board to rely on the objective opinion of his on- 
scene commander in March 1991 who considered the fact that he was 
an American warfighter assigned to a designated war zone and was 
wounded  in  action  while  performing  his  assigned  duties  during 
hostilities  with  another country. He  asks  for  an  end  to  this 
exercise  in  semantics  and  he  be  allowed  to  have  what  is 
rightfully his. 
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 timely filed 

3 

. 

3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence of  probable  error or injustice. This 
Board  studied  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant's 
injuries for which he claims the PH with a great deal of care. 
We certainly understand his skepticism regarding the  "criteria" 
for the award put forth by the Air Staff, but trust that he will 
accept the idea that some measure of control must be applied for 
all decorations.  The applicant has called this Board's  attention 
to DOD Manual  1348.33-M,  AFI  36- 2803,  and  its  forerunner, AFR 
9 0 0 - 4 8 .   In those publications, one finds the "criteria" for the 
award of the PH.  A s   the applicant points out, it may be awarded 
under any action against an enemy of the U . S . ,   or in any  action 
with an opposing armed force. He adds to this the language in AFI 
36- 2803,  which  discuses  the  four situations  in which American 
warfighters might find themselves, i.e., hostilities between the 
U.S. and one of its enemies; hostilities between an ally of the 
U.S. and one of their enemies; hostilities involving U.S. service 
members who are part of an international peacekeeping force; and 
terrorist  attack  (emphasis added).  The  facts  surrounding  the 
applicant's  injuries are well  established in the  "Statement of 
Facts" section of this Record of Proceedings.  The applicant was 
a member  of  an Explosive Ordnance Demolition  (EOD) team  tasked 
with detonating cluster bombs  jettisoned from  an American F-16 
aircraft nearly a  full week previously. He was injured in that 
operation.  At  the  time  of  his  injury,  however,  he  was  not 
involved in an action against an enemy of the United States; he 
was  not  involved  in  any  action  with  an  American  ally  and  an 
opposing  armed  force;  there  were  no  hostilities  involving  an 
international  peacekeeping  force;  and  there  was  no  terrorist 
attack.  He was engaged in a unilateral bomb detonating detail. 
The  criteria  was  not  met.  This  Board  deeply  appreciates  the 
effort  made  by  the  applicant  in  assembling  his  appeal. Quite 
obviously, he serves his country with distinction. We acknowledge 
his  injuries  and  the  difficult  circumstances under  which  they 
occurred. We ask that he understand the position of this Board in 
attempting  to  preserve  the  purpose  and  purity  of  the  PH, and 
other decorations, as we deny his request. 
4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance, with  or  without  legal  counsel, would  not 
have  materially  added  to  that  understanding.  Therefore,  the 
request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES  THAT: 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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. 

4 

The following members 
Executive Session on 
36-2603: 

of the Board considered this application in 
31 October 1996, under the provisions of AFI 

Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chairman 
Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman 111, Member 
Ms. D. E. Hankey, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A .   DD Form 149, dated 1 Jan 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRS, dated 29 Jan 96. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Feb 96. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Mar 9 6 ,   w/atchs. 

5