RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03542
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  JOSEPH W. KASTL

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 May 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award of  the  Bronze  Star  Medal
(BSM) rather than the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should not have been denied the BSM, which is a wartime medal.   It
was the appropriate award for his wartime accomplishments.

The citation was incorrectly diverted at the local level, which denied
him the opportunity to compete at the proper level, the Command Awards
Board.

His co-director received the BSM, which was the same  award  that  was
denied to him.  The only apparent reason for  the  disparity  was  the
difference in their ranks.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  counsel  statements,
personal  statements,  his  biography,  documentation  pertaining   to
decoration board results, citations for the BSM and  DMSM,  copies  of
his last five Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), and other  documents
associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major, having been promoted to that  grade  on  1 Sep 01.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 19 Jun 85.

Available documentation indicates that on 17 Jun 03, the applicant was
awarded the DMSM for  exceptionally  meritorious  service  during  the
period of 15 Nov 02 to 28 Apr 03.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   According  to
AFPC/DPPPR, the  applicant  was  originally  submitted  for  the  BSM;
however it was  downgraded  to  the  DMSM.   They  further  noted  the
decoration  in  question  concerns  the  Joint  decoration  processing
procedures and not Air Force decoration procedures.  In their view, he
has not  provided  any  additional  documentation  from  his  approval
authority to support his claim.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating he is not asking to upgrade a  downgraded  decoration.   He
was inappropriately  given  a  strictly  peacetime  decoration  for  a
strictly wartime period.  In  his  view,  the  Air  Force  decorations
guidance  is  clear  and  unambiguous.   The  award  of  the  DMSM  in
preference to the BSM was in error.  A combat award, not  a  peacetime
award, should be given for a period of combat. His  chain  of  command
reasoning for not awarding him the BSM were  completely  inappropriate
under the regulations.  Namely, because he was a  major,  he  was  not
entitled to the award of the BSM.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR reviewed the applicant’s response to their initial advisory
and again recommended denial.  According  to  AFPC/DPPPR,  the  United
States   Central   Air   Force   (USCENTAF)   is   tasked   with   the
approval/disapproval/upgrade/downgrade    authority    for     certain
decorations arising  from  the  Area  of  Responsibility  (AOR)  which
includes Afghanistan  and  Iraq.   Correspondence  received  from  the
USCENTAF Decorations Processing Unit reflects the DMSM  was  submitted
as a DMSM and approved as a DMSM.

The intent behind the USCENTAF recognition program is to recognize any
deserving individual with an appropriate award for exceptional service
in support  of  CENTAF  during  Operations  SOUTHERN  WATCH,  ENDURING
FREEDOM, and IRAQI FREEDOM.  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 recommended for  individuals  serving  in
direct support of the USCENTAF mission.  The Commander, United  States
Central Command (USCENTCOM/CC) has delegated approval authority to the
COMUSCENTAF  for  certain  joint   decorations   based   on   service,
performance, or  achievements  recommended  for  individuals  assigned
against a valid joint manning document position and serving in  direct
support of the USCENTAF mission to include Operations SOUTHERN  WATCH,
ENDURING FREEDOM, and IRAQI FREEDOM.

The BSM is awarded to personnel in any branch of the military  service
who, while serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces of the United
States on or after 7 Dec  41,  shall  have  distinguished  himself  or
herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving
participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations
against  an  armed  enemy.   The  award  recognizes  acts  of  heroism
performed in ground combat if they are  of  lesser  degree  than  that
required for the Silver Star.  It also recognizes single acts of merit
and meritorious service if the achievement or service is of  a  lesser
degree than that deemed worthy  of  the  Legion  of  Merit;  but  such
service must have been accomplished with distinction.

The DMSM is awarded to military personnel serving with or assigned  to
a number of joint activities,  including  the  Secretary  of  Defense,
Organizations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Headquarters  of  Joint
Commands.  Other joint activities, specified  commands,  and  military
agencies associated with functions of  the  military  or  other  joint
activities as may be designated by the Secretary  are  also  included.
The DMSM is awarded for noncombat meritorious achievement  or  service
that is incontestably exceptional and  of  a  magnitude  that  clearly
places the individual above his peers while  serving  in  one  of  the
assignments for which the medal has been designated.

The DMSM is not strictly a peacetime award.  The USCENTAF  Decorations
Processing Unit was contacted and advised  that  since  October  2003,
they have approved 94 DMSMs from the AOR.

AFPC/DPPPR stated  that  after  evaluating  the  merits  of  the  DMSM
recommendation, their office must support the recommending  official's
intent to award the DMSM.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a  response,  in
summary,  reiterating  that  he  was  awarded  the  wrong  medal.   He
indicated he does not possess  an  unhealthy  ambition.   He  is  only
asking for equitable treatment in requesting redress  because  he  was
given a DMSM when he should have been awarded the BSM for which he was
originally nominated.  That is the proper award for  one  involved  in
major combat operations.  He was involved in  such  combat  operations
during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM leading directly to the  saving  of  93
lives.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  his  appeal  sufficient  to
persuade us that corrective action  is  warranted.   The  evidence  of
record indicates the applicant was awarded the DMSM for  exceptionally
meritorious service during the period of 15 Nov 02 to 28 Apr 03.   The
applicant contends the DMSM is a peacetime medal and  he  should  have
been awarded the BSM vice the DMSM for  his  wartime  accomplishments.
He further asserts he was denied the BSM solely because of  his  rank.
However, we note the Air Force office of primary responsibility  (OPR)
has indicated the DMSM is not strictly a peacetime award, and  that  a
number of DMSMs have been approved for the AOR.  No evidence has  been
presented which has shown to our satisfaction the applicant was denied
the BSM because of his rank.  In view of the  foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of  sufficient  evidence  the  applicant  was  inappropriately
awarded the DMSM, or was improperly denied the BSM,  we  conclude  the
applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  of  establishing  he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.   Accordingly,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-03542 in Executive Session on 17 Aug 05, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 24 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 31 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 Jun 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Jul 05.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair