RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00530
                                             INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Airman’s Medal (AmnM) for heroic actions  and  the  Bronze
Star Medal (BSM) for meritorious performance.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served with  the  military  after  7  December  1941,  and  distinguished
himself by meritorious achievement or service in  connection  with  military
operations against an armed  enemy.   The  BSM  recognizes  single  acts  of
meritorious  service  during  simulated  combat,  bare  steel,  and   ground
training, and he sustained serious injuries to his neck and  shoulder  which
eventually contributed to the award  of  a  90%  disability  rating  by  the
Veterans Affairs (VA).

He risked his life while saving two Japanese children (alone) who were ship-
wrecked during a storm, and the AmnM is awarded to any member  of  the  U.S.
Armed Forces who, while serving with the  United  States  Air  Force,  shall
have distinguished himself by a heroic act, usually at  the  voluntary  risk
of his life.

An injustice is the same as a crime, and there should not be  a  statute  of
limitations when awarding the proper recognition to those  who  served  with
distinction, honor, and heroism.  Had  he  known  there  was  an  avenue  or
statute to repair the injustices he has identified within  this  appeal,  he
would have aggressively  pursued  these  issues  much  earlier,  and  he  is
submitting extensive, pertinent supporting evidentiary documents to  correct
long-standing injustices that occurred during periods  of  his  active  duty
service with the United States Air Force.

In support of his appeal, he  has  provided  copies  of  an  appeals  binder
containing a personal  statement,  numerous  correspondence  documents  with
SAF/LL  pertaining  to  a  letter  his  spouse  wrote  to  the  White  House
concerning these decorations, numerous extracts from his military  personnel
records, a VA letter awarding him a  90%  disability  rating,  and  numerous
miscellaneous newspaper clippings and photographs.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 March  1952.  He
served in the recreation services  career  field,  completing  24  years,  7
months, and 1 day of total active  service,  until  his  retirement  in  the
grade of master sergeant (E-7) on 31 December 1976.

AFPC/DPSIDR has taken action to correct the applicant’s DD Form 214  to  add
the Vietnam Service Medal with 1 Bronze Service Star (VSM w/1 BSS)  and  the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC  w/P),  and  to  change
the DD Form 214 to read the Presidential  Unit  Citation  with  1  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (PUC w/1 OLC), and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award  with  Valor
& 2 Oak Leaf Clusters (AFOUA w/V & 2OLC).

The BSM is awarded for  meritorious  acts  or  achievements,  not  involving
aerial flight, while engaged in an action against an  enemy  of  the  United
States, or while engaged in military operations involving conflict  with  an
opposing foreign force,  or  while  serving  with  friendly  foreign  forces
engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing force in which  the  United
States is not a belligerent party.

The AmnM is awarded for an act of heroism involving voluntary risk  of  life
under conditions other than those of conflict with an  armed  enemy  of  the
United States.  The saving of a life or the success of the voluntary  heroic
act is not essential.  It is not  awarded  for  the  normal  performance  of
duties.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the BSM and  AmnM
be denied, and that he utilize the 1996 National Defense  Authorization  Act
(1996 NDAA) Rules for decoration consideration.

Prior to the enactment of  the  1996 NDAA,  the  time-limit  for  submitting
decoration  nominations  was  two  years  from  the  date  of  the  act   or
achievement.  The 1996 NDAA waived the two-year time limitation, and  allows
veterans to apply for award consideration of a decoration (or upgrade  of  a
previously awarded decoration) not  previously  eligible  because  of  these
time-limits.  The written recommendation must meet two  criteria:   it  must
be made by someone other than the veteran himself who was in  the  veteran’s
chain of command  at  the  time  of  the  incident  and  who  had  firsthand
knowledge of the acts or achievements, and it must be  submitted  through  a
Congressional member who can ask a military service to review  the  proposal
for a decoration based on the merits of the proposal and the award  criteria
in existence when the event occurred.

The applicant believes he should have been awarded the AmnM for  his  heroic
act on 7 April 1970, when he was awarded his second Air  Force  Commendation
Medal (AFCM).  Additionally, he believes his  outstanding  military  service
should have been awarded a BSM when he was awarded his sixth  AFCM  for  his
retirement in 1976.

The applicant served two tours in Vietnam and received the medals for  those
tours and two more AFCMs.  They were unable to locate  a  Special  Order  or
any  official  recommendation  from   Higher   Headquarters   awarding,   or
recommending him for award of, the  basic  AmnM  or  BSM  for  his  military
service.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant offers corrections to  the  cited  time-period  he  served  on
active duty, the number of tours with extensions he served  in  the  Vietnam
Theater of Operations (Thailand), and his Primary (PAFSC) and  Duty  (DAFSC)
Air Force Specialty  Codes.   His  PAFSC  and  DAFSC  during  his  extensive
assignments with the Strategic Air Command carried a  permanent  (U)  suffix
identifier assigned to those specially trained combative measure  armed  and
unarmed  combative  instructors  supporting  the  USAF  Escape  and  Evasion
Program.  Injuries sustained over the many  years  based  upon  his  special
warfare, hand-to-hand combative training had a  significant  impact  on  the
VA’s  permanent  disability  rating  of  90%,  and  it  is  incredulous  his
personnel records do not reflect this.

He offers additional evidence to support his contention that  he  should  be
awarded the BSM, to include a chronicle of the events he feels entitles  him
to the BSM.  He asks the Board to review the VA letter,  dated  17  November
1998, documenting his disability rating caused by  the  military,  the  USAF
AFCM citation for the period 20 October 1968 – 1 February 1969, a Letter  of
Commendation, dated 29 January 1969, signed  by  a  RTAF  commander,  and  a
recommendation by a Regimental RTAF Commander, which are  contained  in  his
original application.  He also notes that  his neck was broken during  close
combat ground training with both the USAF and Royal  Thai  Security  Forces,
and this is not clearly documented in his original application.

He offers additional evidence to support his contention that  he  should  be
awarded the AmnM, and provides an extensive chronicle of  events  concerning
his rescue of two Japanese children from a submerged boat.  He was  told  he
was recommended for the AmnM, but it was downgraded to the AFCM for  reasons
unbeknownst to him.  He asks the  Board  to  review  the  USAF  AFCM  (2OLC)
citation, Stars and  Stripes  articles  concerning  the  rescue,  and  other
enclosures submitted with his original application.

He takes issue with the advisory opinion stating that he should utilize  the
1996 NDAA Rules for decoration consideration.  These incidents  happened  as
early as 41 years ago, and obtaining affidavits from his  chain  of  command
is impossible as he has no contact with any of them  and  some  or  most  of
them have passed-away.  The newspaper articles,  official  photographs,  and
citations  he  has  furnished  are  indisputable  proof  of  evidence,   and
innumerable accounts on public records  and  forums  have  assured  him  the
passage of time has not prevented veterans who serve above and  beyond  from
receiving their just due.   Additionally,  he  questions  why  the  advisory
guidance contradicts the established process, as correspondence he  and  his
wife have received  assured  them  the  AFBCMR  was  the  highest  level  of
administrative review in the Air Force, and the purpose of  the  AFBCMR  was
to relieve the Congress from  consideration  of  private  bills  to  correct
errors or injustices in military records.

Based on the obvious and crucial errors in the advisory  opinion,  resulting
from what can  only  be  surmised  as  a  “person  or  persons”  failure  to
objectively read his  irrefutable  documentation  thoroughly,  and  what  he
considers a total disregard to see justice immediately applied, he can  only
hope the Board will remedy these issues and see fit to award him his  proper
medals.

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case, and  his  contentions
are noted.  We also note that AFPC has taken action to correct his  DD  Form
214 to add the VSM w/1 BSS, RVNGC w/P, the PUC w/1 OLC, and the AFOUA w/V  &
2OLC.  However, although the applicant contends he  was  told  that  he  was
nominated for  award  of  the  AmnM  for  his  rescue  actions  and  it  was
downgraded to an AFCM, there  is  no  evidence,  nor  has  he  provided  any
evidence, he was ever recommended for award of either the AmnM or  the  BSM.
We do not feel the BCMR process  is  intended  to  simply  second-guess  the
appropriateness of the judgments of field commanders or  to  substitute  our
judgment for that rendered by the applicant’s field commanders who were  “on
the scene,” had first-hand access to facts, and were in  a  better  position
to examine the applicant’s accomplishments and actions when they were  fresh
and to judge the suitability of the appropriate recognition.  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-2008-00530
in Executive Session on 21 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149s, dated 14 February 2008, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 11 Mar 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Mar 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Apr 08, w/atchs.




                                   B.J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair