Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01238
Original file (BC-2007-01238.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01238
                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 JANUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect  he  was  awarded  the  Air  Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DD Form 214 does not reflect the AFCM for his meritorious  service
from his assignment at Castle  Air  Force  Base,  from  February  1989
through November 1992.

No supporting documentation was provided.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 17 February
1983, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

Applicant’s OPR profile while stationed at Castle AFB is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                   17 Jan 90            5
                   31 Jul 90            5
                   31 Jul 91            5
                   23 Jan 92            5

The applicant was honorably released from active  duty  on  1 November
1992.  He served 9 years, 8 months, and 15 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPPR  recommends  the  requested  relief  be   denied.    HQ
AFPC/DPPPR state a thorough review of the applicant’s military records
located no documentation awarding  the  applicant  the  AFCM  such  as
special orders, or a recommendation.  The applicant did not provide  a
recommendation or special order with his application.

The applicant may pursue award for the AFCM under  the  provisions  of
the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).   Under  the  1996
NDAA, the  servicemember  may  be  recommended  for  a  decoration  by
following these procedures: 1) be made  by  someone,  other  than  the
servicemember himself, in the servicemember’s chain of command at that
the time of the incident, and, who has first  hand  knowledge  of  the
acts or achievements; and 2)  be  submitted  through  a  congressional
member who can ask a military service  to  review  a  proposal  for  a
decoration.

AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  24
May 2007, for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of  the  Air
Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he  has  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  The  applicant  requests  he  be
awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal for the period  the  February
1989 through November 1992.  However, he provided no documentation and
there is no documentation found in his records indicating a nomination
package to award him the AFCM was ever placed into official  channels.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we find no compelling basis  upon
which to recommend the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2007-01238 in Executive Session on 8 August 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                       Mr. Clarence R. Anderegg, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/A1B, dated 30 Sep 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 06.




                             JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00866

    Original file (BC-2007-00866.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with AFI 36-2803, recommendations for the AFCM and AFAM must be submitted as soon as possible following the act, achievement, or service. There is no documentation available or provided by the applicant that indicates his commander recommended or approved awards for the AFCM or AFAM. The timeline for submitting decorations is two years from the date of the act or achievement.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03134

    Original file (BC-2006-03134.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, his 100-mission certificate, dated 19 Jan 72, was filed in his personnel records to reflect the additional combat sorties. The AF Form 11 is an obsolete form that cannot be updated, but the applicant’s 100-mission certificate has been filed in his personnel records as proper credit for the additional combat sorties. Neither the applicant’s records nor his submission provide convincing evidence he was ever recommended for or awarded the AM 4OLC.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00363

    Original file (BC-2006-00363.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. However, other than his own assertions, no evidence has been presented to show that the recommendation and processing of the AFCM was not in accordance with the applicable Air Force Instruction. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 23 Feb 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00590

    Original file (BC-2007-00590.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00590 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 AUGUST 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The applicant must provide an official recommendation and proposed citation for award of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02396

    Original file (BC-2006-02396.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC2006-03165

    Original file (BC2006-03165.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03165 INDEX CODE: 107.00 LESLEY D. RHODES COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 Apr 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 7, Airman Military Record, be corrected to reflect the following: Item 5. However, his AF Form 626, reflecting temporary duty (TDY) in connection with his award...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03816

    Original file (BC-2005-03816.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03816 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Jun 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) at the time of his separation. Applicant was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Longevity...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01238

    Original file (BC-2005-01238.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be awarded the AM because he was assigned to the flight crew of the commander of the 84th Depot Repair Squadron, 15th Air Force, who was awarded the AM. Further, under the 1996 NDAA service members may request consideration of awards not previously eligible because of time limitations, provided the written recommendations be made by someone other than the member himself, in the member’s chain...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02480

    Original file (BC-2005-02480.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he served during World War II from 24 March 1942 through 17 January 1946. He further states he is requesting an OLC not an additional medal (Exhibit E). After thoroughly reviewing the available personnel records, we found no evidence to verify he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03558

    Original file (BC-2005-03558.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    All elements of a DFC for heroism approved (certificate dated) between 18 September 1947 to 2 June 2004 will not be reaccomplished to reflect “Valor”; nonetheless, individuals with these DFCs are authorized to the wear the “V” device.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR states the applicant was awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement and not heroism. Therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request for the “V” device...