AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IK THE MATTE2 OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03117
C3UNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the third oak leaf cluster (30LC) to the Air Medal.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was eligible for the 30LC but did not receive it. The 22
combat missions he flew qualified k i n f o r the award of
to the Air Medal. The group p e r s o m e 1 section of the
p failed to submit the proper recommendation tc Hea
Air Division f o r a 30LC to the Air Medal for him. He asked
about the omission whlie stili assigned to the 94t” Bomb Group-in
JGn 45 but was :old ~y responsible personnel that, a l t h o q h he
was properly entitled to a 30LC, there was not sufficient time at
that date to have the recommenaation processed by higher
headquarters because he was then on a list of personnel to be
rotated b a c k to the United States.
After his return tc the
United States, he inquired about a request for the 30LC ana was
promptly informed t h a t the Replacement Depot had no authority to
initiate such a request and since he was being processed f o r
release from active duty, there was no way such a request could
be considered.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal
statement-, copies of his enlistnent and discharge records, and
copies of his flight records.
Applicant’s complete submission 1s attached at Exnibit A.
STATEMENT’ OF FACTS :
AFRCMR 97-03 1 I7
Operations ( E T O ) Ribbons with 4 Bazzle Stars, 2 Overseas Service
E a r s , and American Theater Ribbon.
3r. 19 Jan 46, the applicant was released from the Air Corps in
the grade of major. He was credited with 3 years ana 17 days of
active service and 1 year and 21 days of foreign service.
On 23 Feb 51, the applicant was recalled from inactive duty to
the Guard (Selected Reserve) in the grade of lieutenant colonel.
On 27 Apr 52, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air
Force Air National Guard (ANG) ilnder the provisions of AFR 36-22
(Release From Active Duty) in the grade of lieutenant- colonel.
He was awarded the Armed Forces Reserve Medal. He was (credited
with 11 years of active service.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Recognition Programs Brazch, AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed t h i s
application and indicated that the applicant d i d not provide a n y
documentation to show that he was recommended in writlng w i t h i r ,
two years of the service performe2 s,r that the recolmendatlcrL was
He indicated that ne made
submitted into official channels.
verbal inquiries on two occaxons m t never subrnlttec a written
request for consideratlon of t h e aaditlonal decoratlcn. He has
provided no documentatlon tc show that he wer-t througn
administrative channels at a n y time to inquire as tc h l s
eligibility/entitlement to tk-e 30LT to the Air Medai. 3ecaise
the applicant has waited over 51 years without making a w r ~ t e 1 - 1
inquiry regarding the status of t h i s decoration, there are no
longer any records or personnel wc?e were involved a v z i l a c l c , f o r
review or inquiry. In fact, the :rzt(s) and chain of cornmana no
longer exist. It is no longer possible to ascertain whether or
not the applicant was eligible for an additional decoratiorA for
aerial achievements. DPPPRA recornrends denial af the 3ppl;cant's
request
A complete copy of t h e Aiz T c r c z evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
'
AFBCMR 97-03 1 17
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
The applicant has exhausted all remedies proviced by existing
1.
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 probable error or injustice. After
a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's
submission, we are not persuadec that he should be given the 30LC
to the Air Medal. His contentlons are duly noted; however, we do
not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficlently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the
Air Force. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that
he has suffered either an errGr 3r an injustice. Therefore, we
find no compelling basis to recsrrx.er,d granting the relief sought.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified :ha:
demonstrate the existence af srobable material error or
inlustlce; that the applicatxn Tv+i;?,s denied without a personal
appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered
upon the submission of newly disr3vered relevant evidence n o r
considered with this appiicatlan.
t h e evidence presented did__not
__--- ____
The 5olbwlng members of the Bcdra :snsiderea this application ir;
Execdtive Sesslon on 11 J u n e 1396, under the provisions of Air
F c r c e InstructLon 36-2603:
-_
Mr. Thomas S. P t a r k i e w i c z , Panel Chair
Mr. Robert W. Z O C ) ~ , Member
Ms. Olga M. C r e r a r , :?ember
Mrs. Joyce E a r l e y , Examiner (without vote;
T h e f oilowing documenzary evicence -,czs considered:
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F , The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, review the application and states that records clearly show the applicant was fit for duty through all the years of his active duty service, and, while having some residual problems relating to his Korean War experiences, he was well and able zo perform his dEties up to the time of h i s retirement, He is being compensated appropriately by the DVA for his service-connected, but not unfitting,...
The appropriate Air Force o f f i c e evaluated applicarit ‘ s request ana provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit Z The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D ) . T r. 0 additional evaluation was forwarded to applicant f c r re-Jie+; ar,d comment (Exhibit G ’ i . Applicant’s response to the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H. The appropriate After careful consiaeratio~ cf applicant's r e q u e...
After careful of applicant’s zsquest and the available evidence csrsid3ra:icn sf z z c a r d , -;;z find no evidence :hat the applicant’s d i s c k z r g e :hias A7c7,” 2°F L , afz3.f ~s-~siaering the facts zxd circumstances l e a d i r i g zz z r ~ e a p ~ l i z z r - : ’ s separation and -:-Fw of the fact t k L a t , ~::z;e: c u r r e r , t standards, the applica:? iliamond, Member Ms. Sophie A. \:;ark, Mernber F i l l members v o t e d to correct the records, as recommended.
discovered the absence of an AF E'orrr 63 in his records upon receipt of that RIP; however, that ;s irzelevant to The issue that h e i n c u r e d the A D S C . However, we do not find his uncorroborated contentions, in and by themselves, sufficiently compelling to conclude that he unwittingly incurred an ADSC for training he would not have accepted had he been aware of the ADSC prior to entering the training. Exhibit B.
Applicant? The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant I s request and provided advisory oplnions to the Board recommending the application be deniec (Exhibit C). The advisory opir2ions were forwarded to the applicart for review and response (Exhibit D1.
In support, applicant provides, ir- part, a reaccomplished E P K , his similar appeals submitted under AFI 36- 2401, and statements from the contested report s indorser and commander. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the contested EPR should be replaced or that his RE code should be changed. Neither the applicant nor the evaluators have submitted persuasive evidence specifically demonstrating why the contested report is...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinicn tc the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit Z . The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for- review and response (Exhibit Dj. We note that applicant's request pertaining to Block 7A of his DD Form 214 has been corrected administratively; therefore, the only issue before this Board Is his r - e q i s s t that the 40LC be added to the MSM in Block 13.
The facts surrounding applicar-z ' s separation f r o x the Air Naticrdl Guard and A i r Force Reserve are m k n o w n inr.srnucli as the discharge correspondence is not available. T h e appropriate Air Force o f f I C E ?--aluated applicant Is request ar,d z 1 p r c m i d e a ar, advisory o p i n i s a t h e Board recommerLdir~: t h e was application be denied (Exhicx 13 . AvaAable Master Personnel Recgl-3s C. Advisory Opinion D. E. Applicant I s Response F. AFBCMR L t r to Applicant, d t...
A I R FORCE BOARD FOX ZCRRECTION OF :v A C L ~ V E S t a t u s List from t h e K e t i r e d Reser-T,-e ana a s s i g n e d t o ar, a p p r o p r i a t e Cztegory A o r B ~ G X ~ M L A p p h c a n t ’ s submission IS at E x h i b i t A. The appropriste Air Force of?::? ?vallJstec a p p l x a r L t ’ 5 1 - q u e s t ana p r o v i d e d an a d v i s o r y o p i ~ x x zo the EDard -ecommending t h e a p p l i c a t i o n be d e n i e d (ExhibiL : .
On 4 Sep 97, the applicant was requested to provide a copy of his Travel Voucher for TDY to verify that he was in the Area of Responsibility for Operation Desert Shield/Storm (Exhibit C) . Further, DVA stated that the applicant was separated from the Air Force in Apr 91, shortly after his return to Italy from the Persian Gulf, and had no need to save TDY orders or a PERSCO (Personnel Readiness and Deployment Teams) statement (see Exhibit H). Insufficient relevant evidence has been...