RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-
03727
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JUNE 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late husband’s records be corrected to reflect he was awarded
the Bronze Star Medal (BSM), and that it be added to his DD Form
214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United
States.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her husband was awarded the BSM in April 1952, but it was not
entered into his records, and was not listed on his DD Form 214.
In support of the appeal, applicant provided a summary of her
husband’s military history, copies of her husband’s DD Form 214 and
discharge certificate, a copy of a personal letter to her husband
from his commanding officer, her husband’s death certificate, and
copies of correspondence through the member’s Senator’s office,
relating to his request for the BSM.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The member served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from
6 Dec 48 - 13 Dec 52, as a radio operator. His DD Form 214
reflects he was awarded the Korean Service Medal, Occupational
Medal (Japan), Merit Unit Commendation. He served 1 year, 8
months, 26 days of Foreign Service.
Applicant served in the Air Force Reserve from 5 Mar 53 - 4 Mar 56,
at which time he was honorably discharged.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied, and states, in
part, the applicant did not provide any official documentation to
support her husband’s claim for the BSM.
On 14 May 04, the servicemember was informed by the Air Force that
they were unable to find evidence of a recommendation for, or award
of, the BSM in his records. At the same time the member was
provided the current procedures on how to apply for a decoration.
The timeline for submitting decorations is two years from the date
of the act or achievement. In the case of World War II
decorations, 3 May 51 was the cut-off for submission. However,
under the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA), Section 526, which was enacted into law on 10 February
1996, this timeline, has now been waived. Under this Act, service
members may now request award consideration, based on a written and
signed recommendation. (1) be made by someone (other than the
member), in the member’s chain of command at the time of the
incident, and, who has firsthand knowledge of the act or
achievement; and, (2) be submitted through a Congressional member
who can ask a military service to review a proposal for a
decoration based on the merits of the proposal and the award
criteria in existence when the event occurred.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 27 Jan 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. 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 thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded the requested
relief should be granted. The applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale
provided by the Air Force. Therefore, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.
___________________________________________________________________
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-
03727 in Executive Session on 2 March 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Panel Chair
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, undated.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 06.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03541
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy an AFCM citation and certificate awarded to a former member of his unit which was awarded during the time he alleges he was assigned. However, after review by AFPC/DPPRY, it was discovered the applicant is also entitled to the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor and one oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the Air Force Longevity Service Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Republic...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02780
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received $100.00 at the time of his discharge but never received the additional $200.00. He did not receive the additional AM, nor did he receive the medal the crew officers recommended him for a deed up and beyond the call of duty. The applicant did not provide any documentation to support award of the AM or DFC.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00208
After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the member’s records are in error or unjust. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of her request for the BSM; 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 there exists no error or injustice in her late husband’s military records. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01676
Documentation provided by the applicant reflects that a citation for award of the DFC was submitted to the PACAF Awards and Decorations Board; the Board disapproved the DFC and recommended no lesser decoration be awarded. In both of the DPPPR evaluations the recommendation was to deny applicant’s request for reconsideration of the DFC. Exhibit C. Letters, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 12 Jun 07 and 17 Jul 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01231
The timeline for submitting decorations is two years from the date of the act or achievement. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states the recommendation to deny his request based on the fact one of the criteria: “be made by someone, other than the member himself, in the member’s chain...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02858
Current timelines for submitting decorations is two years from the date of the act or achievement. Under this Act, which lifted the time limitations on submitting award recommendations, veterans who may make a case for award consideration (or upgrade of a previously awarded decoration) not previously eligible because of these time limits, may now submit for award consideration. Novel, Panel Chair Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member The following documentary evidence was...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02396
He agrees with the recommendation of the Air Force, if his citation does not verify his decision was beyond the call of duty neither the AM or DFC is appropriate (Exhibit E). Congressman Shimkus, in a letter dated 18 December 2006, offers his support in the applicant’s request for an upgrade of AM w/4 OLCs (Exhibit F). On 10 January 2007, the Board staff requested the applicant to provide clarification regarding his request for an upgrade of his AM w/OLCs (Exhibit G).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00870
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00870 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). We took note of the documentation provided in support of the applicant’s request for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00700
In this respect, we note that counsel has failed to provide evidence that the member was ever recommended for a BSM. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 May 1944, he was awarded the Air Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Navigator on B-17 airplanes on many bombardment...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01567
DPPPR states that after a review of the applicant’s records and his submission, they find no evidence to support the award of the Purple Heart Medal. The applicant has provided no documentary evidence that was previously unavailable at the time he was injured or when his spouse’s request for the award was declined by the Air Force OPR that would show to our satisfaction that the circumstances of his injury met the criteria for award of the Purple Heart Medal or that he was recommended for,...