RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00979
            INDEX CODE:  107

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Award of the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) for the  period  4 Jan  93
through 2 Feb 93 for participation in combat and combat support flight
operations.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While assigned as a flight surgeon to the Combined Task  Force  (CTF),
Operation Provide Comfort, Incirlik, Turkey, he  met  the  established
criteria of participating in 10 combat flight sorties (as  an  aircrew
member of KC-135 aircraft conducting aerial refueling missions in  the
skies over northern Iraq) to be awarded the AAM.   United  States  Air
Forces in Europe (USAFE) major command (MAJCOM) denied this  award  on
grounds that he was a flight surgeon and thus considered no more  than
a passenger on these flights, while other flight surgeons (assigned to
different commands) were awarded this medal during the same period for
participating  on  the  same  flight  missions.   USAFE  grounds   for
excluding flight surgeons from qualifying for aerial awards is  an  ad
hoc policy that fails to recognize the flight surgeon as a  bona  fide
rated crew member as established in AFI 11-402  and  which  diminishes
the flight surgeon’s duties as a flyer in  support  of  other  aircrew
members in a hostile flying environment.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel.

Documentation provided by the applicant reflects that he was to depart
on temporary duty (TDY) to Incirlik, Turkey,  in  support  of  CTF  to
proceed on 1 Jan 93 for 30 days.

On 19 Feb 93, a Verification of  Flying  Hours  letter  reflected  the
applicant flew combat/combat support hours during the period 4 Jan 93 -
 2 Feb 93 of 10 combat sorties (KC-135R), 1 combat support sortie  (E-
3B), and 1 combat support sortie (MH-53).

On 26 Feb 93, the applicant was recommended by the commander for award
of the AAM.  The justification letter indicated that during the period
of achievement, the applicant  was  on  TDY  assignment  to  the  CTF,
Operation Provide Comfort, Incirlik, Turkey, and that he  participated
in 10 KC-135R combat refueling missions, 1 E-3 B AWACS  combat-support
reconnaissance mission, and 1 MH-53 PAVE LOW helicopter combat-support
night-training mission.  The  letter  also  states  that  he  met  the
requirement of sustained aerial flight for the AAM  by  completing  10
combat flying sorties and 2 combat-support sorties.

On 21 Jun 94, the Vice Commander, 32nd Fighter Squadron (USAFE), after
receiving the AAM submission, indicated that there was a major problem
processing the submission.  He indicated, in part,  that  AFR  900-48,
paragraph 3-10, stated that to be qualified for  any  medal  based  on
aerial achievement, an individual must  be  “involved  with  operating
aircraft” or “performing aircrew members’ duties.”  Upon review of the
applicant’s package, a question arose regarding the  applicability  of
this award to performing flight surgeon duties vice  aircrew  members’
duties.  The commander was informed that it was not USAFE/XO’s  policy
to award the AAM or Air Medal to  flight  surgeons  unless  they  (the
flight surgeons) were “actually performing aircrew duties” which meant
that if a flight surgeon was performing flight surgeon duties airborne
in the hostile fire zone, the award would be  considered  appropriate.
Flying  in  a  KC-135  as  a  passenger  would   not   qualify   while
participating in a Combat SAR and treating an  injured/wounded  person
while aboard an MH-60 would.  It was also indicated that USAFE/XO  had
not been awarding the AAM to flight surgeons  for  Operations  PROVIDE
COMFORT  and  DENY  FLIGHT  and  would  not  favorably  consider   the
submission on the applicant.  Therefore,  the  commander  declined  to
pursue submission for the award.

In a letter, dated 1 Dec 97, the Deputy Commander, 39th Wing  (USAFE),
indicated  that  he  reviewed  the  applicant’s   package   requesting
assistance in having an AAM awarded based on his flying from  Incirlik
on KC-135R,  E-3B,  and  MH-53  aircraft  while  supporting  Operation
PROVIDE COMFORT.   The  Deputy  Commander  stated  that  the  criteria
awarding this medal was established by the MAJCOM and was  beyond  his
office to waive.  He also stated that the guidance currently  followed
for attached flyers required a minimum of 14 sorties to meet  the  70%
criteria and could not support the applicant’s request based  on  both
the sortie count and the USAFE policy stated in the Commander’s 21 Jun
94 letter.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Recognition   Programs   Branch,   AFPC/DPPPRA,   reviewed   this
application and indicated that applicant’s TDY  orders  do  not  state
that he was TDY in support of any operation, only “in support of CTF.”
 He did not provide a copy of orders designating him  as  a  regularly
assigned  crew  member.    Headquarters   USAFE,   the   MAJCOM   with
approval/disapproval authority (at that time), explained to  him  that
it was not their policy to award flight surgeons the Air Medal or  AAM
unless they were actually performing air surgeon  duties  airborne  in
the hostile fire zone (e.g., treating an injured/wounded person  while
aboard an MH-60).  AFR 900-48, 15 Mar 89, was the pertinent regulation
during that period.  The AAM was awarded  for  “sustained  meritorious
achievement while participating in aerial  flight.   The  achievements
must be accomplished with distinction above and beyond  that  normally
expected of professional airmen.  MAJCOMs will identify  the  missions
and positions that qualify for this award.  HQ  USAF/XO  must  certify
MAJCOM criteria.”  The applicant did not accomplish  any  achievements
on the combat support flights.  HQ USAFE supplemented this  regulation
with additional criteria, to be applied to regularly assigned  aircrew
members, but not to flight surgeons.  In addition, while the applicant
requested reconsideration based on new criteria  proposed  at  a  19 -
22 Nov 96 meeting at Randolph AFB, Texas, regarding standardization of
criteria for the Distinguished  Flying  Cross,  Air  Medal,  AAM,  and
Combat Readiness Medal, these criteria have not yet been approved  and
would not apply to the applicant’s request for the AAM for 1993.

DPPPRA further states  that  the  AAM  was  established  to  recognize
regularly assigned aircrew  members  who  performed  their  duties  in
combat above and beyond that normally called for.  MAJCOMs  have  been
allowed to further supplement the criteria  by  basing  award  of  the
medal on a designed number of combat and/or combat  support  missions.
The applicant was TDY to Incirlik and flew  along  on  combat  support
missions, but did not perform any flight surgeon duties in support  of
combat or combat troops.   Although  the  applicant  may  be  a  rated
aircrew member (he did not provide a copy of orders appointing him  as
such),  he  stated  that  flight  surgeons   “...are   duty-bound   to
participate in frequent flights to become intimately familiar with the
stressors and other medical issues of air operations.”  Therefore,  he
was on the flights to familiarize himself with medical issues  of  air
operations, and did not participate in any  combat  or  combat-related
activities.   HQ  USAFE  has  set  the  criteria  for  their  area  of
operations, and these criteria have  been  certified  by  HQ  USAF/XO.
Applicant requests these criteria be set aside in his  case  to  award
him the AAM.  However, he does not meet the basic criteria  set  forth
in AFR 900-48, and he does not meet  the  criteria  set  forth  by  HQ
USAFE; therefore, he is not eligible for the AAM.

A complete copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a  three-page
response, with attachments, which is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPRA,  again  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant’s rebuttal  has  not,  in
essence, provided any new information.  The fact remains that at  that
time, he was not eligible for award of the AAM in accordance  with  HQ
USAFE requirements.  While the applicant feels that it is not fair for
MAJCOMs to set additional/separate criteria for award of an Air  Force
decoration, the Air Force requirement for  the  AAM  is  “awarded  for
sustained  meritorious  achievement  while  participating  in   aerial
flight.  MAJCOMs, FOAs, DRUs will identify the missions and  positions
to qualify for the award.”  This policy was set because MAJCOMs,  FOAs
and  DRUs  are  in  the  best  position  to  determine  more  specific
requirements than anyone else.  HQ  USAFE  determined  that,  at  that
time, flight surgeons were not eligible for the AAM.   DPPPRA  further
states that the applicant has not provided any documentation  to  show
that his  flight  participation  involved  achievements...accomplished
with  distinction  above  and  beyond  that   normally   expected   of
professional airmen.  By participating in the flights while on TDY  to
familiarize himself with flight  operations,  he  was  performing  his
required duties and has not provided any documentation to show that he
accomplished these duties  with  distinction  above  and  beyond  that
normally expected of professional airmen.  The applicant has  received
AAMs since that time, merely for accomplishing  a  certain  number  of
flights, because the policy changed.  It  is  unreasonable  to  expect
current policies to be  applied  to  previous  events.   DPPPRA  again
recommends denial of applicant’s request.

A  complete  copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation,   with
attachment, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluation and  wishes  to
point out a repeated error of mission classification.  The  10  aerial
refueling missions which he participated on as an aircrew member  from
Jan to Feb 93 were officially designated combat sorties  as  confirmed
by flight  management  office  documentation,  not  “combat  support.”
There is a difference of more than just symantics, which may have been
overlooked or discounted in advisory review.  In review of  the  first
and second technical advisory reports, he has noted both a failure  to
address  pertinent  information   or   policy   inconsistencies,   and
demonstration of  a  prejudicial  attitude  regarding  flight  surgeon
flight mission  participation  (now  depicted  as  “merely  performing
required duties”).  He states that flight surgeons are  rated  aircrew
members and the  cavalier  tone  and  inaccurate  terminology  in  the
advisory undermines the gravity of this fact.  He appeals to the Board
to consider USAFE’s past inconsistent application of an ad  hoc  award
policy for the AAM during deliberations regarding his case.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPR,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the fact remains that at that time, the
applicant was not eligible for award of the AAM in accordance with  HQ
USAFE requirements of 15 missions for MH-53, or 20 missions for  E-3B,
or  25  missions  for  KC-135  and  he  has  not  provided   any   new
documentation showing that he has flown and met the above criteria  as
a crew member participating in flights while TDY  to  Incirlik  during
1993.  Applicant has not provided documentation to show  that  he  met
one of the basic  criteria  established  by  USAFE,  i.e.,  he  was  a
regularly assigned crew member on the flights during Jan-Feb 93  while
TDY to Incirlik.  In  both  rebuttals,  he  brings  forth  allegations
regarding USAFE’s inconsistent policies which were not answered; since
these  are  unsubstantiated  allegations  and  do   not   affect   the
applicant’s eligibility criteria, DPPPR sees no reason to  comment  on
them.  The applicant has provided documentation showing the change  of
criteria after the period in question but DPPPR  must  adhere  to  the
established criteria in effect at that time.  Accordingly, he did  not
meet the criteria for award of the AAM for the period  4 Jan  93-2 Feb
93 and they recommend disapproval of his request for award of the  AAM
for this period.

A  complete  copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation,   with
attachments, is attached at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluation and provided  a
2-page response which is attached at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

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,  a  majority  of
the Board is not persuaded that he should be awarded the AAM  for  the
period 4 Jan 93 through 2 Feb 93.  Duly noted is applicant’s assertion
that the policy awarding AAMs in Headquarters USAFE  is  inconsistent.
However, after reviewing the numerous in-depth  evaluations  from  the
Recognition Programs Branch, the Board  majority  notes  that  MAJCOMs
identify the missions and positions which qualify for the awarding  of
the AAM.   Therefore,  in  spite  of  applicant’s  assertions  to  the
contrary,  during  the  contested  time  period,  in  accordance  with
Headquarters USAFE requirements, he was  not  eligible  for  the  AAM.
Therefore, a majority of the Board agrees with the recommendations  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 error or an injustice.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

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 7 January and 7 April 1999, under the  provisions
of Air Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Gordon voted to grant the relief  sought  but  does  not  wish  to
submit a minority report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:






The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 17 Apr 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Apr 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 26 Jun 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 1 Sep 98.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 98.
     Exhibit H.  Letter fr applicant, dated 2 Oct 98.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 Feb 99, w/atch.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 99.
     Exhibit K.  Letter fr applicant, dated 2 Mar 99.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair