RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02763
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) instead  of  the  Air  Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for the BSM  but  was  awarded  the  AFCM  instead.
Applicant believes  that  his  BSM  recommendation  should  have  been
forwarded to HQ Military Advisory Command, Vietnam (MACV)  because  of
his assignment to a  Joint  Service  Organization  (JSO).   JSO  award
recommendations were supposed to be considered by MACV.

In support of his  appeal,  applicant  has  provided  a  copy  of  the
recommendation package for the BSM and the citation to  accompany  the
award of the AFCM.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 August 1961 and  was
progressively promoted to the grade  of  master  sergeant  (MSgt/E-7).
The applicant was honorably discharged on          28  February  1983,
and retired effective 1 March 1983, after serving 21 years,  6  months
and 15 days of active duty.  He was credited with 2  years,  2  months
and 24 days of Foreign and/or Sea Service.

Applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty, reflects that he was awarded the AF  Meritorious  Service
Medal, the AF Commendation Medal, the  AF  NCO  Professional  Military
Education Ribbon, the AF Longevity Service Ribbon,  with  4  oak  leaf
clusters, the National Defense  Service  Medal,  the  Vietnam  Service
Medal, with 3 oak leaf  clusters,  the  Republic  of  Vietnam  Service
Medal, the Army Meritorious Unit Service  Medal,  the  AF  Outstanding
Unit Award, and the AF Good Conduct Medal,  with  1  silver  oak  leaf
cluster.  (AFPC/DPPPRA determined that the Vietnam Service Medal, with
3 oak leaf clusters, should have been the Vietnam Service Medal,  with
3 bronze service stars, and the  Republic  of  Vietnam  Service  Medal
should have been the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.   Applicant’s
DD Form 214  will  be  administratively  corrected  to  reflect  these
changes).

As a staff sergeant (E-5), applicant  was  assigned,  on            24
September 1968, to Det 7AT 1137th USAF Support Activity Sq  with  duty
in Defense Communications Agency-Southeast Asia Mainland (DCA-SAM)  in
Saigon,  Republic  of  Vietnam.   On  16  July  1969,  applicant   was
recommended for award of the  BSM  for  meritorious  service  for  the
period 24 September 1968 to          1 September  1969.   On  31  July
1969, applicant was awarded the AFCM instead of the BSM.

Examiner’s Note: There is no documentation included  with  applicant’s
package, or in the record, to indicate why the original recommendation
was downgraded from BSM to AFCM.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial stating  that  applicant  provided  no
documentation that showed DCA-SAM was under the administrative control
of MACV; that applicant did not  provide  documentation  showing  that
either he or his recommending official requested  reconsideration  for
upgrade of the AFCM within the one-year time limit, and finally,  that
since  the  recommending  official  signed  the   recommendation   and
addressed it to 7th Air Force, it must be presumed he was aware of the
proper administrative channel through  which  the  package  should  be
submitted.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant   disputes   the   Air   Force   evaluation   and   requests
reconsideration due to the following:

         a. Applicant reiterates his contention that he  was  attached
to a JSO by showing that his APR at the time, was signed by  a  Marine
Corps sergeant, initially indorsed by a  Naval  chief  petty  officer,
indorsed by an Army  major  and  finally  approved  by  an  Air  Force
colonel.

         b. He was  assigned  to  the  Defense  Communications  Agency
(DCA), which as a DoD agency, could not have been under the control of
a numbered Air  Force.   Therefore,  his  BSM  recommendation  package
should have been sent to MACV vice 7th AF.

         c. He disputes the Air Force evaluation comment  that  infers
that the BSM was reserved for TSgt’s and above by unwritten rule.   He
argues  that  an  unwritten  rule  favoring  certain  ranks  is   pure
discrimination.  He further states that the distribution of awards  is
governed by applicable rules and regulations.
                                      2
         d. Applicant addressed the Air Force’s  contention  that  the
recommending official(s) at the time must be presumed  to  have  known
the proper channels for awards and decorations by pointing
out that applicant’s chain  of  command  at  the  time  of  the  award
submission was a new one as the previous people in his immediate chain
of command had either rotated back  to  the  states,  been  killed  in
action or been replaced.  Therefore, the Air Force cannot assume  that
the applicant’s chain of command knew who to send  the  recommendation
package to.

Finally, the applicant contends that  he  deserves  the  BSM  for  his
combat service in Vietnam, but should he not be granted relief that he
be considered, at a minimum, for the Joint Service Commendation  Medal
(JSCM) as opposed to the AFCM.  (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.

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  and
noted, also, the untimeliness of the application;  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
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-02763 in Executive Session on 4 March 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                                      3
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 24 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dtd 17 Oct 02, w/atch’s.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 8 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dtd 30 Nov 02.



                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair