RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03248
            INDEX CODE: 106.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 Apr 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal with One Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM  1OLC)  for
the period 13-15 May 75 be upgraded to the  Bronze  Star  Medal  with  Valor
(BSM w/V) and he be promoted to the grade  of  master  sergeant  (MSgt)  for
cycle 90A7 with back pay.  At Exhibit F,  the  applicant  requests  his  Air
Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) be upgraded to either an Airman’s Medal  (AM)
or an AFCM.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had been submitted for the BSM for his participation in the USS  Mayaguez
rescue in 1975 on the south coast of Cambodia but for  unknown  reasons  the
award was downgraded to the AFCM 1OLC.  He has tried for  30  years  to  get
the award upgraded.  On his last testing cycle, he was #1 of the  nonselects
for MSgt.  If he had been awarded the BSM instead  of  the  AFCM,  he  would
have been promoted.

In support of his request, applicant provided a  statement  from  a  retired
lieutenant colonel who indicated he was assigned to Nakom Phanom Royal  Thai
Airbase from Sep 74 to Sep 75 as the Assistant  Squadron  Commander  of  the
56th Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron (CAMS)—the  same  period  of
time the applicant was there.  He indicates the applicant was one  of  those
deployed in the rescue and recovery of the ship and crew  but  the  BSM  was
downgraded to the AFCM by  higher  headquarters.   A  retired  colonel  also
provides a statement, indicating  the  applicant’s  aircraft  made  numerous
flights in harm’s way into Koh  Tan  Island  to  insert  Marines  or  rescue
downed aircrew from aircraft that had been shot  down  by  the  Khmer  Rouge
forces.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 Jun 73.
During the period in question, the applicant was assigned to the  56th  CAMS
in Thailand.  Special Order T-785, dated 17 May 75,  ordered  the  applicant
and others to  proceed  from  Nakhon  Phanom  Airport,  Thailand  to  Utapao
Airfield, Thailand for temporary  duty  (TDY)  for  approximately  15  days,
proceeding on or about 15 May 75.

The AFCM 1OLC citation  indicates  the  applicant  demonstrated  outstanding
professional skill and superior technical knowledge while flying as  a  crew
member on a CH-53 helicopter as a member of a task force to rescue  the  USS
Mayaguez and its crew from hostile  enemy  forces  on  the  south  coast  of
Cambodia during 13-15 May 75.

The applicant retired in the grade of technical sergeant on 1 Jul  90  after
20 years and 28 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers recommendation regarding the BSM 1OLC  to  [SAF/MRBP].
DPPPWB advises that Air Force promotion policy dictates  the  closeout  date
of a decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility  Cutoff  Date
(PECD) and the  signature  date  of  the  DÉCOR-6,  Request  for  Decoration
Printout (RDP), must be before  the  date  of  selections  for  a  cycle  in
question.  The PECD for cycle  90A7  was  31 Dec  88.   The  AFCM  1OLC  was
considered in several promotion cycles;  however,  upgrading  it  to  a  BSM
would not have increased the applicant’s score sufficiently to render him  a
select for promotion to MSgt until cycle 90A7 (promotions effective Aug  89-
Jul 90).  His total score was 320.82 and the score  required  for  selection
in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 320.92.   If  the  AFCM  1OLC  is
upgraded  and  supplemental  promotion  is  directed  for  cycle  90A7,  the
applicant would become a selectee.  Air Force  policy  requires  individuals
selected for master and senior master sergeant serve  in  these  grades  for
two years from the effective date of promotion.  In addition,  members  with
18 or more years of total active federal military service  (TAFMS)  will  be
required to obtain two years retainability  to  serve  the  two-year  active
duty service commitment (ADSC).  Should the decoration be upgraded  and  the
applicant promoted to the grade of MSgt with a date of rank (DOR)  of  1 Sep
89, DPPPWB recommends the Board adjust the applicant’s  retirement  date  to
31 Aug 91.  The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial.  SAF/MRBP states there is  no  documentation  in
his record or that the applicant has provided  which  suggests  his  efforts
were based on “aerial participation” and as such, he is ineligible  for  the
BSM.  The complete SAF/MRBP is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant responded by describing his duties as a crew member/Crew Chief  on
the CH-53 helicopter during the rescue and recovery  of  the  USS  Mayaguez.
The applicant now states he would like his AFAM he  received  for  saving  a
human life be upgraded to either an AM or  an  AFCM.   A  complete  copy  of
applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends denial.   SAF/MRBP  states  that  AMs  are  awarded  for
significant non-combat heroic acts.  AMs are often downgraded  to  AFCMs  if
the heroic act is not significant enough to warrant  an  AM.   MRBP  advises
there is no documentation to include the newspaper excerpt that asserts  the
applicant was in any danger or at risk  of  death  in  saving  his  friend’s
life.  The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 12 June 2007 for review and comment  within  30  days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the available evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded the applicant has been the victim of  an  error
or injustice.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not  find  the
evidence provided sufficient to override the assessment provided by the  Air
Force.   Despite  the  support  he  receives  from  his  former  commanders,
evidence has not been presented which would lead  us  to  believe  that  the
officials who recommended and approved the award of the AFCM, rather than  a
BSM, to the applicant acted inappropriately in deciding what type  of  medal
was warranted or that their decisions represented an abuse of  discretionary
authority in making that decision.  Therefore, we  agree  with  the  opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force offices of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Likewise, since  we  have
determined favorable consideration  of  the  applicant’s  request  that  his
award be upgraded is not appropriate, his request for  promotion  to  master
sergeant on this basis is also not favorably considered.  In regard  to  the
applicant’s additional request that his AFAM be upgraded to either an AM  or
an AFCM, his  contentions  in  this  regard  were  noted;  however,  in  our
opinion,  the  SecAF  Personnel  Council  has  adequately   addressed   this
contention and we are in  agreement  with  their  assessment  of  his  case.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  basis  to
grant relief.

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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-03248
in Executive Session on 26 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
           Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
           Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
03248 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 11 Dec 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 5 Feb 07.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 07, w/atch.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 6 Jun 07.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Jun 07.




                                  B J WHITE-OLSON
                                  Panel Chair