RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02892
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes he should receive the Air  Medal  for  his  service  during  the
Berlin Airlift and completion of 126 trips to Berlin.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 26  December  1940,  in  the
grade of private for a period of three years and  was  honorably  discharged
on 4 October 1945, in the grade of  technical  sergeant  (TSgt),  under  the
provisions  of  AR  615-365  (Convenience  of   the   Government   RR   1-1,
Demobilization).  He served four years, nine months, and nine days of  total
active service.

He reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 August  1947  in  the  grade  of
TSgt for a period of three years.  He continued to reenlist contracting  his
last enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 October 1961, in the grade  of
chief master sergeant for a period of three years.

His Reports of Separation reflect  award  of  the  Asiatic  Pacific  Theater
Ribbon, Occupation Medal (Germany) with Airlift Clasp,  Good  Conduct  Medal
Clasp (Bronze with 5 Loops), Korean Service Medal with three Bronze  Service
Stars, National Defense Service Medal, United  Nations  Service  Medal,  and
the Air Force Longevity  Service  Award  (AFLSA)  with  4  Bronze  Oak  Leaf
Clusters.


On 31 October 1962, the applicant retired  in  the  grade  of  chief  master
sergeant.  He served 20 years and 4 days of total active service.

On 7 October 2003, AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant there is no  indication
in his records that he was recommended  for  award  of  the  Air  Medal  for
participation in flights for the Berlin Airlift.  His records  did  indicate
he submitted an  inquiry  to  the  Director  of  Military  Personnel  on  25
February 1953.  He also submitted a copy of the final letter  of  May  1953,
indicating there were no records anywhere of  him  having  been  recommended
for award of the Air Medal.  Regardless of the  number  of  flights  he  may
have accomplished, a recommendation package had to be written and signed  by
a recommending official, endorsed by the next higher official in  the  chain
of command, and submitted to the final  approval  authority.   They  further
indicated before his appeal could  be  considered,  they  need  a  completed
recommendation package, including a proposed citation that had  been  signed
by his [then] supervisor, commander or person with  firsthand  knowledge  of
his service or accomplishments, and endorsed by the next higher official  in
the [then] chain of command.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial.  They stated there  is  no  indication  in
the applicant’s records of any flights performed in direct  support  of  the
Berlin Airlift.  However, he was assigned to a  unit  that  received  credit
for participating in the Airlift, and the  Army  of  Occupation  Medal  with
Berlin Airlift Device is reflected on the  appropriate  DD  Form  214.   The
applicant did not provide any reason for not having  followed  through  with
the instructions he received in 1953,  over  fifty  years  ago.   Also,  the
applicant  has  not  provided  any   documentation   showing   he   actually
participated in any of the Berlin Airlift flights.  The  applicant  has  not
provided any documentation to substantiate his claim  or  any  justification
for waiting until there would be no one who could confirm his statements  or
provide a signed and endorsed recommendation for the Air Medal.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 December 2003, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an injustice warranting award  of  the  Air  Medal.
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 and adopt their rationale as the basis  for  our  conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   According
to the applicant’s military personnel records there is  no  indication  that
he was recommended for, or awarded the Air Medal or that he flew any  combat
or combat  support  missions  in  direct  support  of  the  Berlin  Airlift.
However, we note that he was assigned to a unit  that  received  credit  for
participation in the Airlift and the Army of Occupation  Medal  with  Berlin
Airlift Device, which is reflected on his DD Form 214.  On  7 October  2003,
AFPC/DPPPRA advised the  applicant  that  before  they  could  consider  his
request, he needed to provide a completed recommendation package,  including
a  proposed  citation  that  had  been  signed  by  his  [then]  supervisor,
commander  or  person  with  firsthand   knowledge   of   his   service   or
accomplishments, and endorsed by the next  higher  official  in  the  [then]
chain of command.  He was further advised to withdraw his application  until
he could provide that support, but he did not respond.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend favorable action on his request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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 24 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
                  Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2003-02892 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 December 2003,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 December 2003.




                                OLGA M. CRERAR
                                Panel Chair