Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103252
Original file (0103252.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03252
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NONE

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her military record be amended to include the  award  of  the  Armed  Forces
Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) for the Grenada Operation (Urgent Fury).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was a bonafide member of the 507 Tactical Air Contingency Wing that  was
identified by HQ AFMPC as a unit that participated in the Grenada  operation
and  is  considered  to  have  met  the  degree  of  participation  criteria
warranting award of the AFEM.

In support of her request she provides a copy of her DD Form 214, a copy  of
her Permanent Change of Station orders,  a  copy  of  her  request  for  TDY
travel and a copy of HQ AFMPC message 022000Z Apr 84.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28  April  1980  and  was
discharged from active duty  upon  completion  of  her  extended  enlistment
effective 27 March 1986.  She had served 5 years, 11 months, and 00 days  on
active duty.  The applicant’s discharge certificate indicates that  she  was
awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal; Air Force Achievement  Medal;  Air
Force Good Conduct Medal; Air  Force  Longevity  Service  Award;  Air  Force
Outstanding Unit Award and the Air Force Training Ribbon.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied.  DPPPR states a letter  was
sent to the applicant asking her to provide the necessary  documents  needed
to determine her eligibility for award of the AFEM.  She did not respond.

The DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  15
February 2002 for review and response within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  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  this  application  AFBCMR
Docket Number 01-03252 in Executive  Session  on  15  May  2002,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 October 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 8 February 2001,
                 w/atch.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 February 2002.




                                  DAVID W. MULGREW
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01679

    Original file (BC-2007-01679.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01679 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no documentary evidence that would...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03679

    Original file (BC-2002-03679.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). We note that, since the applicant was not in a required 5-skill level...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02234

    Original file (BC-2003-02234.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Since the applicant’s supervisor at Ramstein AB called her previous supervisor at Lackland AFB to inquire about the level of the decoration, and he was told they did not consider her for an MSM because the multiyear retention bonus was not paid, administrative channels are considered to have been exhausted, and it is appropriate for the case to be considered by the BCMR. Her complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02058

    Original file (BC-2003-02058.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02058 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02730

    Original file (BC-2002-02730.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be awarded the PH because he was hit by shrapnel from enemy fire and should be awarded the DFC because he completed over 25 combat missions. The applicant also states that during the period in question, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby the DFC was awarded upon the completion of 25 combat missions. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03221

    Original file (BC-2002-03221.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03221 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: Award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). DPPPR finds no indication in the applicant’s records that he served in Vietnam. The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03221

    Original file (BC-2002-03221.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03221 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: Award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). DPPPR finds no indication in the applicant’s records that he served in Vietnam. The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00577

    Original file (BC-2005-00577.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She is entitled to the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) for her deployment in support of OSW. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that after a complete review of the applicant’s records and the documentation provided, they are unable to verify her entitlement to the GWOT-E. She was originally deployed in support of OSW, for which she is entitled to the AFEM. Due...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201366

    Original file (0201366.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the applicant was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with 2 Bronze Service Stars. They advise that the AFEM was only awarded for service in Vietnam during the period 1 Jul 58-3 Jul 65. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03721

    Original file (BC-2006-03721.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice. The applicant did not provide any documentation showing he was assigned or TDY to Korea. There is no documentation in the applicant’s military records to reflect he was assigned or TDY to Korea.