RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03449
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 May 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect the award of the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC), and First Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal (AM
w/1OLC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He can only assume that his return date from a second Temporary Duty
(TDY) tour in Southeast Asia (SEA) was close to his separation date
(early separation to attend graduate school); hence, his personnel
record failed to get updated properly.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits two DD Forms 214 and a
copy of an AF Form 11, Officer Military Record.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant served on active duty as an officer during the period 21 Aug
67 to 30 Jun 73, with an overseas assignment as a KC-135 Aircraft
Commander in Thailand from 1 November 1972 to 28 February 1973. He
earned the Air Medal, SOG-118, Headquarters 8th Air Force (5 Dec 70 -
1 Feb 71), 1971; National Defense Service Medal; Small Arms Expert
Marksmanship Ribbon; Vietnam Service Medal; AF Longevity Service
Award; and, Combat Readiness Medal.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends disapproval. After a thorough review of the
applicant’s military personnel record, they are unable to find
supporting documentation to indicate he was recommended for the award
of the DFC or the AM w/1OLC. The applicant also did not provide any
supporting documentation to support his claim for award of the DFC or
the AM, 1OLC.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 26 May 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response. 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
applicant’s military personnel record, we are unable to find
supporting documentation to indicate he was recommended for the award
of the DFC or the AM w/1OLC. 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 the conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 issue(s) 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 this application in
Executive Session on 12 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 11 May 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.
B J WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03040
Applicant’s AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, Item 10 (Awards), reflects the DFC and Air Medal (1OLC). After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find that insufficient evidence has been presented to support award of additional Air Medals. In the absence of such evidence we agree with the opinion and recommendation from the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant did not provide any documentation to support his claim with regards to additional Air Medals.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01125
There is no evidence to support he completed 29 missions required, at that time, for award of the DFC or that he met any other eligibility criteria for award of the DFC. The applicant’s records currently reflect he was awarded the AM twice and is entitled to the AM w/1OLC. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 24 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03787
The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 19 May 2006, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). The Board majority notes evidence has not been provided and there is no documentation in the applicant’s military personnel record, which would substantiate that the recommendation for award of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00128
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. To be awarded the PH, a member must provide documentation to support he was wounded as a direct result of enemy action and must have received medical treatment by medical personnel. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00185
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00185 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 JUL 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show his entitlement to additional Air Medals (AM) for 56 combat missions. The Board also notes, no evidence has...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03569
The applicant had completed a total of 4 years, 1 month and 14 days of active service and was serving in the grade of sergeant (E-4) at the time of separation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, issued in conjunction with his 29 August...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02340
The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). The OER for the following period, 20 Aug 68 - 14 Aug 69, reported the member had been awarded the DFC for heroism, as well as AMs with 1- 7OLCs. Neither the applicant’s submission nor her...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02188-AM
Therefore, the facts surrounding his Air Force military service cannot be verified. The complete DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a photocopy of the Air Force Exceptional civilian award. We note the memorandum decreed by General “Hap Arnold” in regard to the routine awarding of the Air Medal; therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02188
Therefore, the facts surrounding his Air Force military service cannot be verified. The complete DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a photocopy of the Air Force Exceptional civilian award. We note the memorandum decreed by General “Hap Arnold” in regard to the routine awarding of the Air Medal; therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03571
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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. However, the applicant was unable to provide the necessary documentation to be awarded the DFC. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...