Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01873
Original file (BC-2006-01873.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01873
                                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL: NONE
                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 October 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him  to  reenlist
in the service.  He be awarded the Gulf War Medal.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code of “2X” (first-term, second-term, or  career  airman  considered
but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment  Program)
is incorrect.  In addition, he is entitled to the Gulf  War  Medal  for  his
direct support of the Gulf War.

In support of his application, the applicant provides  a  copy  of  DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,  notification  of
non-recommendation  for  promotion,  certificate   of   appointment   as   a
noncommissioned officer, honorable  discharge  certificate,  certificate  of
achievement, civilian employment denial letter.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 November 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 24 in the grade of airman basic for  a  period  of  four  years.   He
served as  an  KC-10  Strategic  Aircraft  Maintenance  Specialist  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4).

On 18 November 1990,  the  applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  for
expiration of term of service with an honorable discharge.  He  served  four
years of active duty.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects  his  awards  as
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Air Force  Longevity  Service  Award,  Air
Force Training Ribbon, Air Force  Good  Conduct  Medal  and  the  Journeyman
Technician Award.

On 4 August 2006, AFPC/DPPAE forwarded a letter to the applicant  indicating
his RE code of “2X” was  incorrect  and  that  his  DD  Form  214  would  be
corrected to reflect an RE code of “3K” (Secretarial Authority).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request  for  award  of
the Gulf War Medal.  DPPPR states the Gulf War  inclusive  time  period  was
from 2 August 1990 to  30  November  1990.   The  applicant  separated  from
active duty military on 18  November  1990.   DPPPR  was  unable  to  locate
official documentation  to  verify  the  applicant  participated  in  direct
support of the Gulf War.

DPPPR did verify the applicant was entitled to the National Defense  Service
Medal (NDSM) for his service while serving on active duty  during  the  Gulf
War.  On 27 August 2006 a DD Form  215,  Correction  to  DD  Form  214,  was
forwarded to the applicant indicating  his  record  had  been  corrected  to
reflect his award of the NDSM and correcting his RE code to “3K.”

The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


He may not have had any actual foreign service during  his  time  on  active
duty; however, his special duty of changing brakes on  KC-10A  aircraft  was
in direct support of the Gulf War. It wasn’t until after his discharge  that
the time period of his special duty  became  officially  designated  as  the
Gulf War.

The applicant’s rebuttal 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 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 note the Air Force  has  corrected  the
applicant’s record to reflect a change in his RE code to “3K”  versus  “2X;”
therefore, we will only address his  request  for  award  of  the  Gulf  War
Medal.  After a thorough review  of  the  available  records,  we  found  no
evidence that the applicant is eligible  for  the  award  of  the  Gulf  War
Medal.  We note the applicant’s assertion that he served in  direct  support
of the Gulf War;  however,  the  applicant  has  not  provided  evidence  to
support this contention.  In  addition,  we  note  the  applicant  separated
before the end of the inclusive period that would entitle him  to  award  of
the Gulf War Medal.  In view of the above, we agree with  the  opinion  from
the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant  does  not
meet the requirements for the award of the Gulf War  Medal.   Therefore,  we
find no basis to favorably consider the applicant’s  request  for  award  of
the Gulf War Medal.

__________________________________________________________________

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 31 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2006-01873
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 06, with atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 10 Aug 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Sep 06.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 8 Sep 06.




                                                   MARTHA J. EVANS
                                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01246

    Original file (BC-2006-01246.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01246 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 October 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect his award of the Air Medal (AM) and Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). In addition, they were unable to find any evidence of a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01808

    Original file (BC-2006-01808.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 February 1972, he was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. On 28 August 2006, the Air Force Personnel Center Separations Branch issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, adding the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor and one Oak Leaf Cluster, Air Force Good Conduct Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm to the applicant’s records. We note the Air Force has corrected the applicant’s record to reflect his award of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02306

    Original file (BC-2006-02306.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02306 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 JANUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect award of the Air Medal (AM), Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor & One Oak Leaf...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02280

    Original file (BC-2006-02280.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02280 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 January 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) Medal. DPPPR states that the applicant’s case was submitted to the Purple Heart Review Board (PHRB) for consideration. Exhibit C....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02188-AM

    Original file (BC-2006-02188-AM.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-02188.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2006-01765

    Original file (BC-2006-01765.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The separate, stand alone documentation provided by the Air Force does not provide the same level of sufficiency as an annotated DD 214. The supporting documentation provided by the applicant indicates he served in Korea for 68 days, which would qualify him for the KDSM. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he be awarded...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03583

    Original file (BC-2006-03583.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03583 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 12 FEBRUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Medal (AM) awarded on 17 Aug 2004 for heroism be upgraded to the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor (DFC w/V). The Chief of Staff of the Air Force strongly believed another...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801645

    Original file (9801645.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, they cannot accept the mere fact that the applicant was on aircraft nine times during combat sortie flights as “providing direct support” to operations in Vietnam. Now if they were flying recon missions over there he believes he was assigned or attached not only to the organization but to the aircraft as well. After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, we believe that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that he is eligible for the Vietnam...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00033

    Original file (BC-2003-00033.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that there is no evidence in the member’s military personnel records that supports that he was injured as a direct result of enemy action; therefore, he is not entitled to the PH. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...