AFBCMR 00-01165

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

     Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to XX, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal,
rather than the Air Force Commendation Medal, for meritorious service while
assigned to duties in Southeast Asia from 10 December 1965 to 2 December
1966.



                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                            DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01165
                                        INDEX CODE: 107.00

                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

____________________________________________________________________________
____

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal
(BSM), rather than the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM).

____________________________________________________________________________
____

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he departed Southeast (SE) Asia in Dec 66, he was recommended for the
BSM. After several months at his new duty station and with the assistance
of his base award and decorations personnel, he contacted the awards and
decorations personnel responsible for processing his recommended award.  He
was advised the Awards and Decorations Section had received the
recommendation for the BSM, however, they had not acted on it.  He was also
advised that the recommendation was poorly written and documented, and that
the best they (awards and decorations personnel) could do was to rewrite
the citation to accompany the award for an AFCM. Ten months after he
departed SE Asia, he was awarded an AFCM in lieu of the BSM.

In support of his application, he has provided numerous attachments
including a recreated Recommendation for Decoration signed by his former
Rater and Recommending Official.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

____________________________________________________________________________
____

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered Officer Training School (OTS) on Extended Active Duty
(EAD) on 8 Feb 63.  On 7 May 63, he was appointed 2nd Lieutenant, Reserve
of the Air Force.  He accepted a Regular Air Force appointment on 3 Jun 68,
and was progressively promoted to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.
Applicant served 20 years and 23 days on active duty and retired from the
Air Force in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel, on 28 Feb 83.


A review of the applicant's record did not yield the original request for a
BSM recommendation however, an AF Form 77a, covering the period of 16 Sep
66 through 29 Nov 66, signed by a Captain assigned to the Supply Squadron,
indicated the applicant had been recommended for the award of the BSM. The
applicant's record reveals he was awarded the AFCM, per special order G-
148, dated 19 Sep 67, for meritorious achievement while stationed in SE
Asia, for the period of 10 Dec 65 to 2 Dec 66.

____________________________________________________________________________
____

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, recommended
disapproval. DPPPR stated that in 1998, the applicant requested to have the
AFCM upgraded to the BSM. In 1999, he submitted the request through
congressional channels under the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996
(NDAA 1966) and the case was forwarded to SAFPC.  His request was denied
because the recommendation did not meet the criteria for the BSM.  DPPPR
pointed out that the applicant has not provided a copy of the original
recommendation package or any documentation showing he attempted to have
the AFCM upgraded to the BSM during the time he was on Active Duty (Exhibit
C).

____________________________________________________________________________
____

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant submitted objections to DPPPR's comments.  Applicant provides
rebuttal comments (1 through 4), and contends that nowhere in DPPPR's
advisory have they addressed the basis for his request for a correction of
military records.  His Rating Official, Endorsing Official and Wing
Commander, were all surprised to learn that he had not received the BSM,
and readily agreed to assist in the recreation of the necessary
documentation to support his specific acts and achievements.  He directs
the Board's attention to the Air Force Times edition dated 19 Jun 00, where
it reports that a majority of Bronze Star citations for the U.S. air
campaign against Yugoslavia last year went to servicemen far from the
combat zone.  At least 5 BSMs went to officers stationed in the United
States, and three to Colonels in Germany who worked on over-flight
clearances and basing rights in Europe (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.

2



3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  The Board majority is of the
opinion that the evidence is sufficient to warrant favorable consideration
to the applicant's request for the award of the Bronze Star Medal (BSM).
The available evidence and correspondence provided by the applicant's
former commander and immediate supervisor, indicates that the applicant was
recommended for a BSM for meritorious service and meritorious achievement
while stationed in Southeast Asia from 10 Dec 65 to 2 Dec 66.  However,
some nine months after the applicant's departure from Southeast Asia, the
recommendation was downgraded to the AFCM, contrary to the recommendations
of his chain-of-command.  After reviewing the definitions of the AFCM and
the BSM, coupled with written testimony provided in behalf of the applicant
by his then chain-of-command, the Board majority is of the opinion that the
BSM is the more suitable award.  The Board majority believes that the
applicant's chain-of-command during this period were in the best position
to judge his achievements and his service.  Their testimony points to his
numerous achievements in logistical planning that significantly reduced the
turn-around time to recover and launch aircraft combat sorties and the
downtime on aircraft out-of-commission for maintenance.  These actions,
according to his chain-of-command, were force multipliers in tactical
warfare and contributed immeasurably to the mission success of the Wing
while engaged in military operations against an enemy of the United States.
 The Board majority believes the evidence has created some doubt that the
applicant was appropriately recognized for his accomplishments during the
cited period. Therefore, the Board majority believes that, in recognition
of the applicant's long and distinguished service and his contributions
during the period covered by the award, any doubt concerning this matter
should be resolved in his favor.


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was awarded the Bronze Star
Medal, rather than the Air Force Commendation Medal, for meritorious
service while assigned to duties in Southeast Asia from 10 December 1965 to
2 December 1966.


The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on September 5, 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Panel Chair Ms. Diana Arnold, Member Mr. Christopher
Carey, Member

3




Mr. Carey and Ms. Arnold recommended approval of the application. Dr.
Kauvar voted to deny the application but elected not to submit a Minority
Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 00, w/Atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 12 Jun 00.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Jun 00.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Jun 00 w/Atch.



                                        GERALD B. KAUVAR
                                       Panel Chair