RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02629
            INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The recommendation to award him the Airman’s Medal (AmnM)  for  an  incident
that occurred on 24 December 1970, be downgraded to the  Bronze  Star  Medal
(BSM), with “V” device for valor,  and  approved,  or  in  the  alternative,
downgraded to either the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) or  the  Air  Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM).

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFBCMR erred by never considering to downgrade the  AmnM  recommendation
to a BSM, with “V” device, or in the alternative, the  MSM,  1  OLC  or  the
AFCM, 2 OLC.

The applicant states that during his tour in Vietnam, he was  almost  killed
two or three times.  He was shot at with  a  .45-caliber  pistol  at  point-
blank range while helping another airman on his own  volition  and  carrying
him to escape.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
6 February 1970.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant, and retired for length of service on 1 November 1990.  During  the
period 28 September 1970 to 27 September 1971, he was  assigned  to  a  USAF
Postal Courier Squadron in Southeast Asia.

On 13 May 1993, the AFBCMR considered the applicant’s requests  that  he  be
awarded the AmnM, effective 24 December 1970, and the AmnM, First  Oak  Leaf
Cluster, for heroism based on two events; he be authorized  a  10%  increase
in his retired pay for “extraordinary heroism”; and he be  promoted  to  the
grades of senior master sergeant and chief master sergeant at  the  earliest
possible date, with all back pay and allowances.  The Board  determined  his
requests were not timely filed, and found  no  basis  to  conclude  that  it
would be in the interest of justice to waive his failure to timely  file  as
provided by the applicable statute (10 USC 1552).  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.  The Board was not persuaded the record raised  issues
of error or injustice, which required resolution on the  merits,  and  again
found his case untimely.  For an accounting of the facts  and  circumstances
surrounding the application, and the rationale of the  earlier  decision  by
the Board, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D.

During promotion cycle 84A7, the total  Weighted  Airmans  Promotion  System
(WAPS) score required for selection in the applicant’s Air  Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC) was 320.68, the applicant’s total WAPS  score  was  320.22.   If
the Board favorably considers his  request  and  provides  him  supplemental
promotion consideration for this cycle,  the  additional  decoration  points
would make him a selectee during this cycle, provided  he  would  have  been
otherwise eligible and recommended by his commander.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and  states,  in  part,  the
applicant has not provided any new documentation, or any basis for award  of
any  decoration  for  the  incident.   In  a  previous  package,  the   only
individual in his then chain of command states that  he  vaguely  remembered
an incident being reported, because it  could  have  been  serious  and  the
cause of much paperwork and reporting up the chain of command.

The AFBCMR did not err in not considering a lesser decoration than the  AmnM
in his previous cases, because he did not request  such  consideration.   He
was never recommended for any decoration for  having  been  involved  in  an
incident off-base because he  would  have  been  censured  for  having  been
involved in an incident involving  weapons  with  Thai  nationals  firing  a
weapon at American military personnel and, had the incident been  officially
reported, there would  have  been  serious  negative  consequences  for  the
American military personnel involved.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  evaluation  used  malicious   methods   to   produce   a   biased   and
unprofessional evaluation of his request.   The  eyewitness  statement  from
the retired chief master sergeant submitted in support  of  his  appeal  was
illegally used  in  the  development  of  the  evaluation.   The  evaluation
wrongfully implies the supporting statement is  invalid  and  has  illegally
censored the statement.

The applicant’s complete responses, with  attachments,  are  at  Exhibits  G
through K.

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and the  documentation  provided  by  the  applicant,  we  do  not
believe his actions on 24 December 1970, meet the criteria for  award  of  a
decoration.  In this  respect,  we  note  the  statements  provided  by  the
applicant indicate the incident occurred during  a  birthday  party  at  the
residence of a Thai national, when  her  husband  and  his  friends  arrived
finding the applicant and  other  servicemen  at  his  residence.   At  some
point, enraged at the presence of  American  servicemen  at  the  residence,
shots  were  fired  by  one  of  the  Thai  nationals,  while  the  American
servicemen were attempting to leave.  AFPC/DPPPR states  the  applicant  was
never recommended for any decoration for having been involved  in  the  off-
base incident because he would have been censured for having  been  involved
in an incident involving weapons with Thai  nationals  firing  a  weapon  at
American military personnel and, had the incident been officially  reported,
there would  have  been  serious  negative  consequences  for  the  American
military personnel involved.   This  is  further  evidenced  by  the  former
senior postal officer’s statement that it could have been  serious  and  the
cause of much paperwork and reporting  up  the  chain  of  command,  not  to
mention the  possibility  of  injury  to  one  of  his  men.   The  personal
sacrifice he endured for his country is noted and our  decision  in  no  way
diminishes the  high  regard  we  have  for  his  service.   However,  after
carefully reviewing the  evidence  of  record,  to  include  the  eyewitness
statement,  we  are  not  persuaded  the  events  surrounding  the  off-base
incident on 24 December 1970 meet the criteria  for  an  award.   Hence,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  BC-2003-02629
in Executive Session on 4 February 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Mary Johnson, Member
                       Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Jun 93, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                dated 5 Sep 95, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 16 Sep 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Oct 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Nov 03.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jan 04, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair