RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00383
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 AUG 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The son of the deceased military  member  is  requesting  that  his
father’s records be corrected to reflect:

1.  Award of the Distinguished Service Medal (DSM).

2.  He be credited for service in Laos from 24 Jun 64 to 22 Jul 65.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant believes his father should have been awarded the  DSM
for years  of  service  in  classified  assignments.   The  officer
responsible for determining the validity of the award had a  lesser
security rating and could not verify the deceased military member’s
“Top Secret” service record.

He is not  able  to  give  evidence  of  his  father’s  exceptional
service, where he served in Laos and Vietnam, due to its top secret
nature.

In support of  his  appeal,  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  the
deceased military member’s death  certificate  and  copies  of  his
father’s airman performance reports for the periods from  10 Aug 62
to 15 Apr 69.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

After serving in the Air National Guard for 1 year,  6 months,  and
25 days, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10  Oct  50
in the grade of sergeant.   He  had  continuous  honorable  service
until his retirement effective 1  Sep  72.   He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant with  an  effective
date and date of rank of 1 Jul 69.  He was credited with 21  years,
11 months, and 25 days of active duty service.

Applicant’s records reflect award of the National  Defense  Service
Medal, Good Conduct  Medal,  with  3  Loops,  Air  Force  Longevity
Service Award, with 2  bronze  oak  leaf  clusters  (BOLCs),  Joint
Service Commendation Medal, w/1OLC), Air Force Good Conduct  Medal,
w/2BOLCs,  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal  and   the   Air   Force
Outstanding Unit Award.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR provided an evaluation on 2  Mar  06  and  26 Apr 06.
After further review of the applicant’s request,  they  recommended
denial.

Applicant served in the Air Force for over  21  years  as  a  radio
communication analyst; including four years in the foreign service.


The DSM is awarded to members of the Air  Force  who  distinguished
themselves by exceptionally meritorious service to  the  government
in a duty of great responsibility, in combat or otherwise.  After a
thorough review of the deceased military member’s military  records
they were unable to find evidence of a recommendation for, or award
of the DSM.

Prior to the National Defense  Authorization  Act  (NDAA),  Section
526, the timeline for submitting decorations was two years from the
date of the act or achievement.  Based on current law and  statute,
this  timeline  has  now  been   waived;   however,   the   written
recommendation must meet two criteria:

      a.  All military decorations require a recommendation from  a
recommending official within the member’s chain of command  at  the
time  of  the  act  or  achievement,  or  someone  with   firsthand
knowledge.

      b.  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.

Complete copies of the evaluations are at Exhibit C and F.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  deceased  military  member’s  son  reiterated   his   original
contentions that based on his  late  father’s  complete  record  he
should have been  awarded  the  DSM.   An  award  his  late  father
believed he deserved for either  his  entire  career  or  his  last
deployment.  He again explained that his father was  serving  in  a
“Top Secret” environment and that he was unaware  of  the  officers
his father worked for due to the  secretive  nature  of  his  work.
Because of this, he probably  would  not  be  able  to  obtain  any
information to corroborate his eligibility for the DSM (Exhibit E).

A copy of the Air Force revised evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 11 May 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As
of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit
G).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case.  The Board noted the applicant’s  contentions;  however,  the
law requires two criteria to be met in order  to  be  eligible  for
consideration for awards submitted after the  two-year  limitation.
Additionally, the Board  found  no  evidence  to  substantiate  the
applicant’s claim that  the  deceased  member  served  in  Laos  or
Vietnam during the time he stated.  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.  The personal sacrifice the deceased military  member
contributed to his country is noted and  our  decision  in  no  way
diminishes the high regard we have for  his  service.   Should  the
applicant   provide   documentation   that   meets   the   specific
requirements of the law and the governing directives, we  would  be
willing to reconsider his petition.  In view of the above, 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  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-2006-00383 in Executive  Session  on  6  June  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 2 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Mar 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 26 Apr 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 06.



                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair