RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02807
            INDEX CODE:      107.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 MARCH 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Medal with six Oak Leaf Clusters (AM  w/6  OLC),
the Air Force Commendation (AFCM), and the Presidential Unit  Citation
with one Oak Leaf Cluster (PUC w/1OLC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He separated from the Air Force in  March  1970  for  employment  with
Delta Air Lines. His whole B-52 crew (six men) was recommended for the
Air Force Commendation Medal and the paperwork was submitted. Since he
was the only one who did not stay in the  Air  Force,  apparently  his
medals never caught up with him or were lost. The  rest  of  the  crew
received theirs.

In support of  his  application,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal
letter, letters from his crewmembers,  Special  Orders,  a  Letter  of
Appreciation,  DD  Form  215,  an  email,  citation  for   Air   Force
Commendation Medal, and pictures.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned as a second lieutant in the  Air  Force
Reserve on 10 February 1965. Applicant’s request for  cancellation  of
career reserve appointment was approved and he  was  separated  on  27
March 1970 in the grade of captain with an honorable discharge. He had
3 years, 7 months and 11 days of total active Service.

The applicant has earned the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), the Air
Medal with six Oak Leaf  Clusters,  the  Air  Force  Outstanding  Unit
Award, the Vietnam Service Medal,  the  Air  Force  Longevity  Service
Award, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

The applicant’s records were administratively corrected to reflect the
Air Medal with six Oak Leaf Clusters.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR  recommends  denial  and  states  that  the  applicant  has
provided the special orders and letters from former crew  members  who
did receive the AFCM  for  base  closure,  and  attest  to  his  being
recommended for this decoration; however, DPPPR could not  verify  the
applicant was  recommended  or  approved  for  the  AFCM  through  his
military personnel record.

The applicant’s unit, the 6th Bomb Squadron, during his assignment  29
November 1967 to 12 January 1969 earned the Air Force Outstanding Unit
Award (AFOUA). DPPPR was unable to verify his entitlement to  the  PUC
w/1OLC.

AFPC/DPPPR evaluations are attached at Exhibit C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  states  when  he
first looked at his DD Form 214, there were many mistakes. One was  he
had been awarded seven Air Medals  and  only  had  credit  for  three.
Another was that he was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross  and  was
not given credit. You can see that since they left off these important
awards, it would have been very easy to misplace  the  record  of  the
AFCM.

The Air Force never found the documentation for the other  awards.  He
had to  provide  orders  and  certificates  himself.  Since  the  AFCM
order/certificate never arrived at his  home,  he  could  not  provide
documentation for it. The AFCMs were  sent  to  people  at  their  new
bases, or new homes, and  were  not  awarded  at  Clinton-Sherman.  He
assumed that since he was in training with Delta, moved several times,
and many records were lost in a fire in St Louis, that his medal never
caught up with him.

He is not the type to beg, but he thinks he deserves  it  as  much  as
anyone else who served with him. His Air Force record was flawless. He
flew almost 1800 hours in the B-52 (over 1000 were in combat), had 141
combat missions, was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross,  seven  Air
Medals, stood ground alert  during  the  Cold  War,  participated  and
helped his unit pass several Operational Readiness Inspections  (ORIs)
which were very important in SAC, and was  partially  responsible  for
the safety and security of a nuclear-weapon loaded aircraft.  He  also
flew numerous “Chrome Dome” or airborne alert flights, which were  24-
hour missions over the far northern hemisphere with nuclear weapons on-
board.

He would appreciate the Board consider the facts and award the  medals
he deserves. Applicant provided a copy of his congressional complaint,
letters of support from his crew members and an award citation for  an
Air Force Commendation Medal.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The  Board  notes  the
applicant was recognized  for  his  meritorious  achievements  by  the
officials charged with making that determination when he  was  awarded
the Air Medal on 1 December 1969 and the Distinguished Flying Cross on
24 March 1970, upon separating from the Air  Force,  and  his  records
were administratively corrected to reflect the award of the Air  Medal
w/6 OLCs.  However,  no  evidence  has  been  presented  to  show  his
commander recommended him for the award of the Air Force  Commendation
Medal.    We took notice of the  applicant's  complete  submission  in
judging the merits of this issue; however, we agree with  the  opinion
and the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error  or  an  injustice.     The  applicant’s  highly  commendable
actions during the course of his career have  not  gone  unnoticed  by
this Board.

4.  In regards to the award of the Presidential Unit Citation  (1OLC),
the Board finds insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. In this  respect,  we
note the Air Force was unable to verify the applicant’s entitlement to
the PUC w/1OLC as the 6th  Bomb  Squadron,  70th  Bomb  Wing  did  not
received the PUC award.  In view of the above, and in the  absence  of
sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

5.  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 issue 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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
02807 in Executive Session on 8 March 2006, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                 Mr. August Doddato, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 28 Nov 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 1 Dec 05
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 06.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 1 Feb 06, w/atchs.



      KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
      Panel Chair