RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01805
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he was awarded the Airman’s Medal
(AM) and not the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was originally recommended for award of the AM, but that medal was
downgraded by PACAF to the AFCM.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a letter of support,
a copy of a letter, Transmittal of Recommendation for Decorations, a
copy of AF Form 642, Recommendation for Decoration, a copy of the
Airman’s Medal Citation, a copy of newspaper article, 9 Sep 1966 and a
personal statement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty from 21 May 1959 until his
retirement on 31 October 1979. While stationed at Clark AB,
Philippines, one of his duties was to prevent trespassers from getting
onto the gunnery range to scavenge for scrap metal. On 18 August 1965
the applicant apprehended a trespasser, notified the control tower of
their presence on the field, and the control tower diverted an
aircraft that was preparing to strafe (attack) the field. As a result
of his actions, he was recommended for the Airman's Medal, but it was
downgrade by PACAF and he was awarded the AFCM on 30 June 1996.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. There is insufficient documentation
in the applicant’s records to give any indication of why the
recommendation was downgraded from the Airman’s Medal to the Air Force
Commendation Medal. At the time of the incident, all facts would have
been available to everyone in the chain of command, including the
final approval authority, who downgraded the decoration. The
Airman’s Medal is awarded for voluntary risk of life, and the
applicant has not provided any official documentation showing that he
met this criteria.
The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
11 Jul 03, for review and comment 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 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. After a thorough review of the
applicant’s submission and the available evidence of record, we are
not persuaded that the relief requested should be granted. We took
notice of the complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the former member has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling
basis to warrant favorable consideration of the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an 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 no considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-
01805 in Executive Session on 16 September 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 1 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03365
Since the 7th and 13th Air Forces’ Decoration Review Boards reviewed all decorations at that time, they were in the best position to determine which recommendations for the BSM should be awarded and which should be downgraded to the AFCM in order to provide consistency in decorations. DPPPR concluded by stating that the applicant has not made any effort for almost 30 years to have his AFCM (1OLC) upgraded; has not provided any documents showing he submitted a request for upgrade through...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03695
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. It...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03542
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR indicated that after a complete review of the documentation provided by the applicant, they were unable to find any evidence of a recommendation from the applicant’s chain of command. The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) has designated the Commander, USCENTAF (COMUSCENTAF) as the approval authority for all Air Force decorations based solely upon service, performance, or achievements...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-02629
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C. On 28 February 1995, the Board reconsidered his request based on additional evidence he provided. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the applicant has not provided any new documentation, or any...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00668
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the squadron commander did not request a change of the closeout date of the decoration until 9 Jul 01, and the applicant applied for supplemental promotion consideration on 27 Aug 01, after the closeout date was changed. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB asserts there is no conclusive evidence the amended/resubmitted decoration was placed into official...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01500
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), fourth oak leaf cluster (4OLC), awarded for the period 16 November 98 through 23 July 2001, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and he be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00013
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. However, they find it plausible that his commander, not waiting for the decoration package to be completed, assumed an MSM would be approved, and read an MSM citation at the applicant’s retirement ceremony. While the applicant may have been recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) as a retirement decoration, we find no evidence that the recommendation had been completed and approved.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01051
Further, DPPPR argues to award the applicant the DFC after he was awarded a medal for his actions would be an injustice to all other recipients of the AM awarded for actions similar to those of the applicant. DPPRSP’s letter to the applicant, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant submitted additional documentation, through his congressman, withdrawing his request for the AFC and requested that his AM be upgraded to a DFC. Applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02286
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02286 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was awarded the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon. The applicant did not provide any documentation showing that he qualified as Expert on an Air Force firing range. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04106
The application was returned on 8 January 2002, without action and, again, the applicant was informed that he needed to obtain a signed and endorsed recommendation package and submit it through congressional channels. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council Board denied award of the DFC, but awarded the applicant the AM 1/OLC for meritorious achievement on 15 August 1970. In his third request (submitted into congressional channels), the applicant obtained a signed and...