RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01937
                                             INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 December 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Bronze Star Medal (BSM) awarded to him  for  service  in  Iraq  for  the
period 10 August 2003  through  5  December  2003,  which  was  subsequently
revoked by 9th Air Force (9AF), be reinstated.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Revoking the BSM awarded for service in Iraq was an unjust act,  erroneously
carried out as a by-product of his court-martial conviction at McGuire  AFB,
NJ, in January 2005.  He was found guilty of conduct unbecoming  an  officer
because of a relationship with a junior officer who is now his wife and  the
mother of their two children.  He was not discharged, and served another  18
months before retiring after 20 years of service.

Subsequent  to  the  court-martial  findings,  the   prosecuting   attorneys
contacted 9AF and provided them some kind of information  resulting  in  the
BSM revocation.  9AF is the Numbered Air Force (NAF) in charge of  personnel
in the Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR),  and  he  has
not been able to find anyone  in  9AF  that  has  a  documented  reason  for
revoking the BSM.  McGuire AFB is under 21st AF,  not  9AF;  therefore,  the
prosecutors who contacted 9AF acted outside their purview  resulting  in  an
injustice that needs to be corrected.

AFI 36-2803, paragraph  3.7,  states:  “Revoke  an  award  if  facts,  later
determined, would have prevented original approval of the award.”   Although
nebulous, this paragraph, when referring  to  “facts”,  implies  facts  that
apply to the service for which the  award  is  being  presented,  and  these
facts would have had to occur between the dates of  10  August  2003  and  5
December 2003 to prevent the award of his BSM.  In this  case,  the  “facts”
are not connected with either his place or time of  service  connected  with
the BSM award, which was awarded for service in Iraq, not McGuire AFB.

The facts of his court-martial at McGuire AFB have no  bearing  on  the  BSM
awarded for meritorious achievement in Baghdad, Iraq.   The  revoking  order
gives no explanation and was not accompanied by  a  legal  explanation,  and
the lack of supporting documentation  indicates  a  lack  of  substantiating
facts to revoke the medal.  This revocation was the result of a  phone  call
from the zealous prosecutors at McGuire AFB, and their actions  resulted  in
this injustice and abuse of the AF system.  The revocation  of  the  BSM  is
not consistent with the letter or intent of AFI 36-2803, or the  AF  justice
system.

He is not proud of his actions that ended in  a  court-martial,  and  it  is
unfortunate that he will forever  bear  the  cross  for  his  indiscretions;
however, he is proud of his service in Iraq.  The BSM was  awarded  for  his
honorable service in Iraq where he was subject  to  nightly  mortar  attacks
and served to  house,  feed,  transport,  and  protect  his  fellow  airmen,
soldiers, marines, and civil servants.  He left  with  blood  on  his  boots
from the attack on their living quarters, two bombings of the  UN  building,
and the bombing of the Red Cross building.  He  helped  bring  in  an  alarm
system that  helped  to  communicate  the  threat  as  well  as  warn  their
comrades.  As the Director of Logistics,  he  was  working  to  buy  armored
vehicles to protect our personnel long before it became en vogue to try  and
get armor plating for vehicles.   The  USAF  thanked  him  for  serving  and
protecting our own  by  presenting  him  the  BSM,  and  he  treasured  this
blessing and would once again like to have  it  properly  reflected  in  his
records that he served honorably in Iraq  and  was  appropriately  rewarded.
He would love to be able to proudly display this BSM for his family to  show
them what dedication and sacrifice are all about.

He should be allowed the honor and dignity he earned in Iraq.  He asks  that
the injustice  of  the  revocation  of  the  BSM  by  well-intentioned,  but
misguided, lawyers be corrected by reinstating the medal and correcting  his
records.

In support of his appeal, he has provided  copies  of  an  undated  personal
statement, SO TE-0913, dated 29 July 2003, a Letter of  Evaluation  for  the
period 10 August 2003 through 5 December 2003,  SO  G-2806,  dated  12  July
2004, his BSM for the period 10 August 2003 through  5  December  2003,  his
BSM Citation for the period 10  August  2003  through  5 December  2003,  an
extract from AFI 36-2803, The Air  Force  Awards  and  Decorations  Program,
dated 15 June 2001, and SO G-1397, dated 16 February 2005.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

IAW AFI 36-2803, dated 15 June 2001, Table  2.1,  the  BSM  is  awarded  for
heroism or achievement, not involving participation in aerial flight,  while
engaged in an action against an enemy of the US, while engaged  in  military
operations involving conflict with an opposing force, or while serving  with
friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed  conflict  against  an  opposing
force in which the US is not a belligerent party.

AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.8, Special Procedures for Decorations Arising  From
Combat Operations, further states, in part,:   “To  ensure  consistency  for
decorations  arising  from  combat  operations,  the  NAF  and  JTF/CTF  Air
Component Commanders shall forward, in a timely manner, all  recommendations
for  decorations  arising  out  of  combat  operations,  not  within   their
authority to approve, to the MAJCOM Commander serving as the  Air  Component
Commander to the supported CINC….  The MAJCOM  commander…  will  consolidate
decoration recommendations submitted by  the  NAF  or  Air  Force  Component
Commanders.  To the extent feasible, they should  be  evaluated  only  after
they have  been  aggregated….  After  review,  the  MAJCOM  commander…  will
forward those recommendations that he or she finds  meet  the  criteria  for
awards to be approved above the MAJCOM level, to  the  Decoration  Board  of
the Air Force Personnel Council….  The Director, Secretary of the Air  Force
Personnel Council (SAFPC), will  approve  or  recommend  approval  of  those
awards  he  or  she  determines  meet  the  award  criteria  and  are  fully
substantiated….”  For operations pertaining to OEF/OIF, 9AF  was  designated
as HQ United States Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF)  and  as  the  Air
Component Command to the supported CINC.  Beginning in June  2002,  approval
authority for all BSM nominations for OEF/OIF operations was delegated  from
SAFPC to 9AF/USCENTAF/CC.

Applicant was awarded the BSM for meritorious achievement by HQ USCENTAF  SO
G-2806, dated 12 July  2004,  for  the  period  10  August  2003  through  5
December 2003.  He was subsequently arraigned by a General Court-martial  at
McGuire AFB, NJ, in January 2005, and charged with eight  specifications  of
violating Article 133 of the UCMJ.  One of the specifications for  which  he
was found guilty occurred during the period  of  time  covered  by  his  BSM
nomination, that being Specification Six (6) in  that  he  did,  at  McGuire
AFB, NJ, between on or about 1 June 2002 and on  or  about  30  April  2004,
wrongfully  and  willfully  develop  an   unprofessional   relationship   of
inappropriate familiarity with First Lieutenant------, a  subordinate  under
his command, which conduct,  under  the  circumstances,  was  unbecoming  an
officer and gentleman.

USCENTAF/JA reviewed the request by the 305  AMW/CC  to  revoke  applicant’s
BSM, and rendered a legal  opinion  on  10  January  2005.   The  revocation
request stated that while applicant was deployed to Iraq, he  made  numerous
“by name” requests  for  a  female  lieutenant  to  be  deployed  with  him.
Thereafter,  special  exceptions  were  made  to  AMC  policy  wherein  this
lieutenant  was  sent  to  work  with  him   at   his   deployed   location.
Investigation revealed that prior to  the  deployment,  applicant  began  an
unprofessional relationship with this lieutenant and  engaged  in  a  sexual
relationship  with  her  while  they  were  deployed,  and  it  was  further
represented that the lieutenant  became  pregnant  with  applicant’s  child.
The applicant was this lieutenant’s direct superior during  the  deployment,
and  was  her  commander  prior  to  and  after   this   deployment.    This
unprofessional  relationship  continued  after   applicant   returned   from
deployment, and, after the command at McGuire AFB discovered this and  other
misconduct in early 2004, he was relieved of command  and  arraigned  for  a
general court-martial.  AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.7, states “Revoke an  award
if facts, later determined, would have prevented original  approval  of  the
award…The awarding authority revokes an award when the basis  for  award  no
longer exists…”  They opined that  based  upon  the  represented  misconduct
that applicant engaged in during his deployment,  there  appeared  to  be  a
sufficient  basis  to  revoke  his  BSM,  and  that  the  award   authority,
USCENTAF/CC, makes the determination regarding  revocation  of  this  award.
His BSM was subsequently revoked by  USCENTAF  SO-1397,  dated  16  February
2005.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial based on USCENTAF/CC/JA decision to revoke  the
BSM, awarded for achievement, due to his  significant  misconduct  prior  to
and during deployment  to  Iraq,  and  the  fact  he  was  found  guilty  of
misconduct during his court-martial in January 2005.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13  July
2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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 timely filed.

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;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  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.   Based
upon the  represented  misconduct  that  applicant  engaged  in  during  his
deployment, there appears to be  a  sufficient  basis  to  revoke  his  BSM,
awarded for meritorious service vice heroism, and  9AF/USCENTAF/CC  was  the
proper authority as approval authority for all BSM nominations  for  OEF/OIF
operations had been  delegated  to  them  from  SAFPC.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  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 issue(s) 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-2007-01937
in Executive Session on 30 August 2007, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                       Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 27 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair