Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00051
Original file (BC-2006-00051.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00051
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JUL 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded  campaign  credit  for  supporting  Operation  Northern  Watch
(ONW).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was only given credit for non-wartime expedition time for  the  period  5
Jun 96 through 31 Dec 96.  He did not get credit for the 24  months  he  was
assigned to Incirlik Air Base Turkey in support of ONW.

In support of his  request,  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  a  letter  he
received from  the  National  Personnel  Records  Center,  his  PCS  orders,
Enlisted Performance Reports closing  5  Jun  97  and  1  Mar  98,  and  his
Meritorious Service Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  5
Jul 83.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of  technical  sergeant
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  3  Dec  00.
Applicant was permanently assigned to Incirlik  AB  Turkey  from  1  Sep  96
through 3 Aug 98.  On 30 Jun 04, applicant voluntarily retired from the  Air
Force for years of service.  He served 20 years, 11 months, and 22  days  on
active duty
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR states individuals must be assigned  to
ONW to qualify for campaign credit.  Members assigned to Incirlik  Air  Base
as permanent party during the inclusive period do not qualify  for  campaign
credit.  To receive campaign credit, the member must  have  been  physically
in the combat zone, in the air directly over the combat zone,  or  in  water
surrounding the combat zone.  Being "in support  of  an  operation"  is  not
sufficient to receive campaign credit.  The DPPPR evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that during his assignment to Incirlik,  AB  Turkey,  he
was in direct support of ONW.  They had equipment accounts in the  zone  and
often had to go out and ensure they  were  operational.   The  guidance  for
receiving the campaign medal does not  distinguish  between  being  assigned
permanently to a base or deployed.

This complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case.   The  applicant's
contentions that his unit provided support for ONW are duly noted;  however,
according to the applicable  DoD  guidance,  because  the  applicant  was  a
permanent party member assigned to Incirlik  Air  Base  and  not  physically
assigned to ONW, he does not meet  the  qualifying  criteria  for  award  of
campaign credit.  Therefore, 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.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
00051 in Executive Session on 25 Apr 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 7 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Mar 06, w.atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00836

    Original file (BC-2005-00836.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request be denied, and states, in part, the applicant was deployed in support of ONW and OEF, while assigned to Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, from December 2000 to March 2002. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Under the heading...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00095

    Original file (BC-2007-00095.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of applicant’s request to award the HSM in direct support of OPC. Should the applicant provide documentation that she was a direct participant in Operation PROVIDE COMFORT, the Board would reconsider her request. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01325

    Original file (BC-2006-01325.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFSM inclusive time period is from 1 December 1991 to 31 December 1996, and members must have been engaged in direct support for 30 consecutive days in the area of operation. However, should he provide evidence that he served 30 consecutive days in the area of eligibility in direct support of OPC, the Board will entertain his request for reconsideration of this matter. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01451

    Original file (BC-2008-01451.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The IG conclusion was largely based upon its interpretation of the existing rules related to entitlement of CZTE; specifically, its interpretation of whether the temporary duty (TDY) assignments to Incirlik Air Base (AB), Turkey, were in direct support of Operation Northern Watch. Based on his application, dated 15 Feb 05, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) concluded the applicant was the victim of an error and injustice by the Air Combat Financial Services...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01985

    Original file (BC-2008-01985.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The KDSM is a new award and he should receive one for his time served during the period of Sep 98 through Sep 99. He was stationed in Turkey from Sep 96 through Sep 98 and should receive the SWASM for his service during that time. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 30 Oct 08, under...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00279

    Original file (FD2003-00279.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Re + NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD AFSN/SSAN PERSONAL APPEARANCE Je x RECORD REVIEW —- ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL MEMBER SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY x —-—=|- + a x ——L ee fe eal ans fe a ce ISSUES A94,05 INDEX NUMRER A67.10 HIGITS SUBMITTED TO TH APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD HEARING DATE 19 Aug...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03101

    Original file (BC 2014 03101.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03101 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 31 Jul 02 be corrected as follows: a. His DD Form 214 reflects 26 days of Foreign Service and award of the following Air Force Medals and/or Ribbons: - Air Force Training Ribbon - Air Force Longevity Service Award with one device -...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00969

    Original file (BC-1998-00969.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) major command (MAJCOM) denied this award on grounds that he was a flight surgeon and thus considered no more than a passenger on these flights, while other flight surgeons (assigned to different commands) were awarded this medal during the same period for participating on the same flight missions. HQ USAFE supplemented this regulation with additional criteria, to be applied to regularly assigned aircrew members, but not to flight surgeons. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800969

    Original file (9800969.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) major command (MAJCOM) denied this award on grounds that he was a flight surgeon and thus considered no more than a passenger on these flights, while other flight surgeons (assigned to different commands) were awarded this medal during the same period for participating on the same flight missions. HQ USAFE supplemented this regulation with additional criteria, to be applied to regularly assigned aircrew members, but not to flight surgeons. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01850

    Original file (BC-2012-01850.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/A4LE recommends denial, indicating the applicant did not obtain prior approval to self-procure travel during his PCS travel. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,...