RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01261
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Oct 26, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty,  be
corrected to reflect the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM) and a new  or
updated DD Form 214 be sent to him.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received five Air Medals and the Air Force Outstanding  Unit  Award  with
Valor with one Oak Leaf Cluster as a C-130E flight engineer  from  his  four
combat tours.

He was in  Operation  ENDURING  FREEDOM  and  Operation  IRAQI  FREEDOM  and
believes that he qualifies for the medal.

He and  others  encountered  many  mortar  attacks,  large  and  small  arms
engagements, and stayed days and nights at many places in the  combat  zone.
He’s paying for it now.

Currently the  Veterans  Administration  (VA)  has  problems  distinguishing
“combat veterans” who served in the Air Force.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a  copy  of  his  DD  Form
214, copies of his Air Medals, requirements for the AFCAM, VA  records,  and
a list of his unit assignments.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 11 Apr 02 and served  for
a 4-year period.  He has prior active service with the  U.S.  Army  from  28
Sep 90 to 12 Sep 98.

Records indicate the applicant was awarded five Air Medals  for  meritorious
achievement in aerial flight from 9 Apr 04 to 29 Aug 05.

On 15 Mar 07, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the  establishment  of
the AFCAM to recognized military members of  the  Air  Force  (airman  basic
through colonel) who actively participated in combat (ground  or  air).  The
principal eligibility criterion is that the individual must have been  under
direct and hostile fire while operating  in  unsecured  space  (outside  the
defended perimeter), or physically engaging hostile forces with  direct  and
lethal fire.

The applicant has been rated 100 percent disabled by the VA.

Other relevant facts are outlined in the AFPC/DPPPR opinion at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The criteria for the award of the AFCAM to be  forwarded  to  USCENTAF  must
meet  the  following:  The  principal  eligibility  criterion  is  that  the
individual must have been under direct  and  hostile  fire  while  operating
outside the wire in a combat zone, or  personally  engaging  hostile  forces
with direct and lethal fires.   For  the  purposes  of  this  award,  combat
conditions are met when:

a. Individuals deliberately go into unsecured space  (outside  the  defended
perimeter) to conduct official duties, on the ground and in the air;

b. They come under enemy fire  by  lethal  weapons  while  performing  those
duties;

c. Are at risk of grave danger.

Or, individuals defending the base (on  the  defended  perimeter)  and  come
under fire and engage the enemies with direct and lethal fire, and  at  risk
of grave danger, also meet the intent of combat conditions for this award.

DPPPR states the applicant’s submission for the AFCAM was forwarded  to  the
United States Central Air Forces  (USCENTAF) on 1 May 07 for  consideration.
 On 15 Aug 07, USCENTAF/CC  disapproved  the  applicant’s  request  for  the
AFCAM.

The AFPC/DPPPR complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The text of all five of his Air  Medals  state,  “…small  arms  fire,  anti-
aircraft artillery, surface-to-air missile and in the  face  of  the  enemy,
threats or dangerous conditions.”  These events mostly  happened  in  flight
and sometimes close to the airfield but, definitely outside of the wire.

The applicant states he has 640.2 hours of  combat  flight  and  317  combat
sorties.

He and others were under direct fire and hostile fire, outside  of  the  air
field, on the airfield, en route, at altitude, on  ascent  and  on  descent,
outside of the wire.

He and others  were  deliberately  going  into  unsecured  space  conducting
official duties “in the air.”  He and others did come under  enemy  fire  by
lethal weapons while performing those duties.

He and others were outside the defended  perimeter  and  at  risk  of  grave
danger.

The applicant's 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 evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the  existence
of an error or injustice.  We carefully reviewed the documentation  provided
in support of the applicant’s appeal; however, we agree with the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of proof that he has suffered either an error  or  an  injustice.
In this respect, we defer to the authority expert, USCENTAF/CC.   Persuasive
evidence has  not  been  provided  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  that
USCENTAF/CC abused his approval authority in making his  determination.  Our
determination in no way is meant to demean the  applicant’s  accomplishments
during  the  war  on  terror  and  it  appears  he  has  been  appropriately
recognized for his actions.  If he were to secure more compelling  evidence,
for example, the original package submitted for consideration of  the  award
showing that USCENTAF/CC’s disapproval of the AFCAM constituted an error  or
injustice; we would be  willing  to  review  the  information  for  possible
reconsideration of his request.  Therefore, 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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-01261
in Executive Session on 24 October 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Lea Gallogly, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2007-
01261:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 12 Apr 07.
    Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 16 Aug 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 07.
    Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 18 Sep 07.




                                   MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                   Panel Chair