RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00522
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Award of the Air Medal, with one oak leaf cluster (AM, w/1OLC).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 3 June  1967,  he  and  three  other  individuals  were  recommended  and
approved for award of the AM, w/1OLC.  On  7  May  1972,  one  of  the  four
individuals (retired CMSgt ---) received the AM, w/1OLC.   However,  he  and
the other two members have never received the medal.  He believes  his  name
was omitted due to a clerical error.

In support of his request, applicant submits  statements  from  one  of  the
four individuals who was awarded the AM, with a copy of  the  special  order
awarding the AM; a copy of the Air Medal recommendation, dated 3 June  1967;
and,  additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)  is  28
January 1954.   He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 August 1973.

The applicant served in Vietnam from 10 December 1966 to  10 December  1967.
He  was  assigned  to  the  Numbered  Troop  Carrier  Squadron  (TCS)  as  a
reciprocating engine mechanic.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that,  on  3  June
1967, the squadron’s  chief  of  maintenance  submitted  a  request  to  the
squadron awards officer for assistance in awarding the Air Medal to four  of
his aircraft maintenance personnel.

Applicant’s military personnel records reveal that, on 3 December 1970,  the
Directorate of Awards and Decorations, Numbered Air Force,  disapproved  the
proposed decoration recommendation for all four members.

Applicant’s submission contains a copy of Special Order G-1056, dated 7  May
1972, reflecting only one of the four members being awarded  the  Air  Medal
and first oak leaf cluster for meritorious achievement  while  participating
in aerial flight during the period of 1 December 1966 to 31 May 1967.

The applicant’s DD Form 214, dated 27 January 1970, reflects  the  following
decorations:  Republic of Vietnam Campaign  Medal  (RVCM);  Vietnam  Service
Medal, with one Bronze Service Star (BSS); the Air  Force  Outstanding  Unit
Award (AFOUA); and, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM), with  one  oak
leaf cluster.

On 31 January  1974,  the  applicant  was  relieved  from  active  duty  and
retired, effective 1 February 1974, and assigned  to  the  retired  Reserve.
He had completed a total of 20 years  and  3  days  of  active  service  for
retirement and was serving in the grade of  master  sergeant  (E-7)  at  the
time of retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and that he  be  directed
to exercise the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act  (NDAA)
to resolve this matter.  DPPPR states that there is no documentation in  the
applicant’s records, or provided by the applicant, that allows their  office
to conclusively determine what the final outcome of  the  AM  recommendation
was.  However,  filed  in  applicant’s  military  personnel  records  was  a
letter,  dated  3 December  1970,  disapproving  the   AMs   on   all   four
individuals.  There is no evidence available that would explain how  or  why
only one individual ultimately was awarded the AM.

DPPPR indicates that, under Section 526 of the NDAA, the applicant  and  the
other two individual may again be  recommended  for  the  AM.  The  original
recommending official may resubmits the original recommendation,  through  a
congressional member, to the Secretary of the Air  Force  Personnel  Council
(SAFPC) for consideration.

The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 7 May  2004
for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received  by
this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the evidence  provided  by
this applicant, we do not  find  the  evidence  sufficient  to  warrant  the
approval of the requested relief.  In this respect, we note that  the  Award
Board disapproved the Air Medal recommendation on 3  December  1970.   Other
than his own assertions, we have  seen  no  evidence  of  a  clerical  error
omitting the applicant’s name for award of the  cited  medal.   Even  though
one of the four individuals initially recommended  for  the  award  in  1967
did, for reason(s) unexplained here,  receive  an  Air  Medal  approximately
five years later, this alone does not, in  our  opinion,  substantiate  that
approval  for  the  other  members  is  warranted.   We  do  not  doubt  the
outstanding contributions the  applicant  made  during  the  course  of  his
career.  However, in the  absence  of  documentary  evidence  substantiating
that the requested award recommendation was improperly  disapproved,  we  do
not find the evidence provided establishes  to  our  satisfaction  that  the
applicant has been the victim of an error or  injustice.   Although  we  are
unpersuaded by the evidence  submitted,  we  note  that  the  applicant  has
another avenue, under the National  Defense  Authorization  Act  (NDAA),  in
which to resolve his claim for award of the Air Medal and we  encourage  him
to exercise the provisions of the NDAA in resolving this  matter.   In  view
of the above, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as  our  findings
in  the  case.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  is  not  favorably
considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 29 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                  Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2004-00522.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 4 May 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair