RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01646
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 NOV 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The applicant requests the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM)
covering the period 6 Apr 69 to 11 Feb 70, be upgraded to the Bronze
Star Medal (BSM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He contends the original nomination for the BSM was downgraded, due to
an oversight or lack of concern on the part of his senior leadership.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a statement from his
former commander, which states in part, the downgrade of the BSM, may
have occurred due to administrative problems that were the result of
the separation of operational control and personnel administration, or
confusion as to what the applicant’s role was at that time. A copy of
the Bronze Star Citation, and the Bronze Star Narrative, were included
along with excerpts from the applicant’s military personnel records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corp on 4 Dec 42, and was
discharged on 22 May 44, to accept a commission. He was commissioned
a second lieutenant on 23 May 44, and progressively promoted to the
grade of captain. He was released from active duty and served in the
Reserves until he was recalled to active duty on 12 Apr 53. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel and retired
in that grade on 1 Apr 70. His report of separation shows he served
three years, three months and eight days foreign and or sea service.
His record reflects award of the Air Medal (AM), the Vietnam Service
Medal (VSM), the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVCM), and the
National Defense Service Medal w/1 Bronze Service Star. He served 27
years, 3 months and 27 days total military service.
On 24 Apr 01, the applicant provided a copy of a proposed citation for
the BSM and requested the aforementioned AFCM be upgraded. DPPPRA
informed him there was no evidence in his records to show he was
recommended for or awarded the BSM. He was asked to provide a copy of
an order to verify his entitlement to the BSM. He responded by
stating in part, that there was no recommendation for the award in his
records nor has he ever been awarded the medal. He firmly believed
that the intent of the writer of the proposed citation was for him to
receive the BSM. He believes his supervisor wrote the recommendation,
however, due to unknown circumstances the recommendation was not
forwarded through the proper channels.
The BSM may be awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement or
service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection
with military operations against an armed enemy.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The SAF/MRBP recommends denial. MRBP states in part, the applicant
and his former commander are dissatisfied with the downgrade of the
BSM. However, other than speculative comments made by the former
commander, there is no compelling evidence that an injustice was done
or that more senior levels of supervision got it wrong. If the
applicant can provide documented evidence that the BSM was the
standard end-of-tour award for field grade officers in leadership
positions during that time frame, the award could be considered for
possible upgrade.
The MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states, the decision to deny him the BSM was an
injustice. His duties were to fly reconnaissance, direct air strikes
of fighter aircraft on selected targets along with other missions in
support of the war. He believes that SAFPC gave more weight to the
approving officer who downgraded the medal citation than to the person
who wrote the citation and recommended him for the medal. He believes
he is deserving of the BSM and the person who initially downgraded the
BSM to the AFCM made a mistake.
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 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 thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not
persuaded the member’s records are in error or unjust. The personal
sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is noted and our
decision should in no way lessen his service; however, insufficient
documentary evidence has been presented to warrant upgrading the AFCM
to the Bronze Star Medal (BSM). We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of his request for the BSM.
However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Director,
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council and adopt her rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
awarding the requested 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 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 an 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 no considered with
this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-
01646 in Executive Session on 17 October 2007, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Reginald P. Howard, Member
Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 May 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 23 Aug 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Sep 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Sep 07.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03248
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02399
It also recognizes single acts of merit or meritorious service if the achievement or service is of a lesser degree than that deemed worthy of the Legion of Merit; but such service must have been accomplished with distinction. The timeline for submitting a decoration is two years from the date of the act or achievement. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00845
His supervisor told him immediately after the attack that he was recommending him for the BSM and mentioned it again when he signed his performance report. The complete DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 14 May 07, the applicant states he was never awarded or aware that he had received the AFCM for his services in Vietnam. Other than his own...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02137
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are at Exhibits B and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR notes that while serving as a first sergeant and attached to the Army, the applicant was deployed to Balad Air Base (AB), Iraq from 5 Dec 04 to 5 Apr 05. They recommend the Board review the nominating official’s original...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05763
On 26 Feb 13, the Director, Military Personnel Human Resources Directorate was notified that the applicant was awarded the JSCM, dated 9 May 12, and was subsequently awarded the JSCM (1OLC), dated 11 Oct 12, for the same act and period. There is no evidence in the applicants record, nor did the applicant provide any official documentation verifying he or his chain of command attempted to exhaust administrative avenues by requesting reconsideration of the downgrade through the original...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04235
Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. We note the Air Force OPR has determined the applicants entitlement to the Meritorious...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03365
Since the 7th and 13th Air Forces’ Decoration Review Boards reviewed all decorations at that time, they were in the best position to determine which recommendations for the BSM should be awarded and which should be downgraded to the AFCM in order to provide consistency in decorations. DPPPR concluded by stating that the applicant has not made any effort for almost 30 years to have his AFCM (1OLC) upgraded; has not provided any documents showing he submitted a request for upgrade through...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00453
They requested he provide a copy of the special order awarding the AFCM. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he has the original copy of the citation with the raised seal and official certificate, however, he finds it hard to believe that somewhere there is not a copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02384
It also recognizes single acts of merit and meritorious service if the achievement or service is of a lesser degree than that deemed worthy of the Legion of Merit; but such service must have been accomplished with distinction. Therefore, 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03891
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial noting there is no evidence of a recommendation to upgrade the AFCM or official documentation concerning the disapproval and downgrade of the initial recommendation for the AmnM. The applicant did not...