RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00342
INDEX CODE 107.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) and the
Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM).
[HQ AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant on 18 Mar 02 that his DD Form
214 already reflects receipt of the AFAM.]
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not notified that he had received the HSM. He provides, in
part, an AF Form 104, Service Medal Award Verification, signed by the
Kelly AFB military personnel flight (MPF) on 9 Jan 01 and indicating
he was entitled to the HSM for participation in the Central and South
Texas Floods, San Antonio, TX, during the period 21 Oct-13 Nov 98.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During the period in question, the applicant was serving in the grade
of major and was assigned to the Air Force Information Warfare Center
at Kelly AFB, TX, as a division chief. His performance report for the
period 30 Jun 98 through 31 Mar 99 does not refer to any participation
in the flood relief efforts. He retired on 1 Feb 00 with 29 years, 1
month and 28 days of active service.
HQ AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant by letter dated 18 Mar 02 that
his DD Form 214 already reflected receipt of the AFAM as the last
decoration listed in the Remarks section.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records (Exhibit B), are contained in
the official documents provided in the applicant’s submission (Exhibit
A) and in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPR advises that as of spring 1999, Kelly, Lackland and
Randolph AFBs had submitted their lists of personnel who had
participated at the scene of the relief efforts in a direct, “hands-
on” fashion. The applicant’s name was not on the lists. The applicant
did not provide any official documentation showing that he
participated in a direct, “hands-on” fashion during the San Antonio
flood relief efforts. The AF Form 104 cannot be considered valid
because it was signed after he retired and his records were no longer
available for review to the individual who signed the form. There is
no indication in the applicant’s records that he participated in the
relief efforts. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 5 Apr 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Since the applicant’s DD From 214
already reflects receipt of the AFAM, the only issue remaining for
this Board’s consideration pertains to the HSM. After a thorough
review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we
are not persuaded that he should receive this award. The applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Other
than an AF Form 104, which was signed after he retired, he submitted
no evidence sustaining his claim that he met the criteria for the HSM.
The records available to this Board do not include any mention of his
participation in the flood relief efforts. Should the applicant
provide some supporting statements or proof that he did, in fact,
directly and actively contribute to the Central and South Texas flood
relief efforts, we would be willing to again review his case for
possible reconsideration. Unless or until he does so, we find no
compelling basis to recommend approval and conclude that at this time
the case should be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
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 in
Executive Session on 6 June 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00342 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149 (2), dated 30 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 22 Mar 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.
LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
Panel Chair
In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and a copy of a certificate/citation to accompany the award of the AFAM, 1 OLC. 56th Mission Support Squadron special order GB-0408, dated 8 July 1993, awarded the applicant the AFAM, 1 OLC, for meritorious service during the period 5 April 1989 to 31 October 1993. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification for his delay in clearing up the many discrepancies regarding the AFAM, 1 OLC for the October to December...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02097
The decoration was awarded to the applicant by Special Order GJ-091, dated 30 Jun 03, which was after the CY02C board. Neither the citation nor the special order for this award correctly identifies the JSAM as the second, or 1OLC, award. Accordingly, we do not recommend SSB consideration for the CY02C board with this decoration on file, as it did not exist at the time of that board, although we do suggest the applicant have the special order and citation for the JSAM amended through...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. He was asked to provide a copy of his TDY order, showing that he was deployed in direct support of Operation ALLIED FORCE, and a copy of his Travel Voucher to show that he was in the designated area for 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days. The KCM is...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00420
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial noting the HSM was awarded and approved for three Flood Relief Operations in West Virginia and Virginia. After a thorough review of the applicant’s records, AFPC/DPPPR indicated they were unable to find evidence the applicant participated in the approved operations. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03170
(See Exhibit C.) On 21 Nov 02, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant that in order to receive the ROK WSM, veterans must have served in the country of Korea, its territorial waters or airspace during the period 25 Jun 50 - 27 Jul 53. (See Exhibit C.) _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR advises that the dates and location of the applicant’s overseas assignment are not on the DD Form 214, as this information was not included on...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02588
At the request of Colonel S---, the order awarding him the MSM was revoked in order to recommend him for award of the Legion of Merit (LOM). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that DPPPR suggests that HQ PACAF could address his request, then in the same paragraph states that he could not now be recommended for a decoration because of time limitations. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Oct 02,...
Other 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/DPPPR reviewed this application and recommended disapproval. Since the applicant was in the Air Force while stationed in Vietnam, and he was not in an infantry or special forces unit engaged in active...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03571 INDEX CODE:110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect the active duty he performed in the Persian Gulf and some awards and ribbons in particular his overseas short tour ribbon and another ribbon for his TDY during DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. The...
The Board was persuaded by the letters of support the applicant provided from other members of the aircrew on the flight that he sustained injuries. Therefore, the Board recommends that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02991
Letter from HQ AFMC to applicant notifying her of two reassignment opportunities and her eligibility for RTAP. Letter from HQ AFMC to applicant notifying her of ARPC’s denial of her RTAP eligibility. DPP states the position offered her from ARPC was located in Denver, CO but that the Program Manager at DFAS-CO agreed to allow her to perform her IDT’s at the DFAS-San Antonio office thereby providing the same commuting distance she endured when assigned to Kelly AFB, TX.