RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01113
INDEX CODE: 107.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be upgraded to an Airman’s
Medal (AmnM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He met all the criteria for award of the AmnM. The event, for which
he received his nomination for the AmnM, placed his life in danger and
therefore should have never been downgraded. This is his second
request for reconsideration and he still has nightmares about entering
the burning tent. The gas heater that was used to heat the tent
exploded and engulfed the entire tent and if he had not entered the
tent when he did there could have been loss of or severe injury of
three senior grade officers. He does not feel that all heroes should
be injured or die to receive the recognition they deserve.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his AFCM
certificate and citation and a copy of the recommendation for
decoration print-out. The applicant’s complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Effective 31 Jan 97, the applicant was relieved from active duty and
retired effective 1 Feb 97 in the grade of master sergeant. He was
credited with 20 years and 21 days of active service for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states the applicant was
awarded the AFCM for heroism on 26 Sep 86. The applicant was
originally submitted for award of the AmnM which was later downgraded
to the AFCM. The AmnM is awarded to any member of the armed forces of
the United States or of a friendly nation who, while serving in any
capacity with the United States Air Force after the date of the
award's authorization, shall have distinguished himself or herself by
a heroic act, usually at the voluntary risk of his or her life but not
involving actual combat. DPSIDR advises that no official
documentation was located nor provided that verifies the applicant
being reconsidered by the original approval authority for upgrade from
the AFCM to the AmnM. The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at
Exhibit B.
SAF/MRBP recommends denial. MRBP states that based on the
documentation provided by the applicant, they are unable to ascertain
the level of risk and courage/heroism. Without additional
documentation (e.g., eye witness statements, news articles, chain of
command letters, etc.) providing a full account of the event, MRBP is
unable to determine whether the applicant met the criteria required to
receive an AmnM.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were sent to the applicant on 9
May and 16 Jun 08, respectively, for review and comment within 30
days. As of this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 a thorough review of the
available records, we are not persuaded that the applicant's records
should be corrected to show that he was awarded the AmnM. In this
regard, the AmnM was established to recognize heroic acts, usually at
the voluntary risk of life. While his actions were determined to be
heroic, evidence has not been presented which would persuade us that
the officials who recommended and approved the award of the AFCM,
rather than an AmnM, to the applicant acted inappropriately in
deciding what type of medal was warranted or that their decisions
represented an abuse of discretionary authority in making that
decision. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of
the Air Force offices 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. 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-2008-
01113 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 08, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr, Panel Chair
Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-
2008-01113 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 24 Apr 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 6 Jun 08.
Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR and AFBCMR, dated 9 May 08
and 16 Jun 08.
WALLACE F. BEARD JR
Panel Chair
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00001
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00001 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Airman’s Medal (AmnM) instead of the Air Force Commendation Medal for saving the life of an active duty dependent. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05892
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05892 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Airmans Medal (AmnM) for his heroic actions performed on 26 Sep 03. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00530
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. However, although the applicant contends he was told that he was nominated for award of the AmnM...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03887
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 1 November 1977 to 30 June 1998. DPSIDR states the Department of the Air Force Special Order GB- 110, dated 15 November 1991, does not indicate the applicant was awarded a ten percent increase in retired pay. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03520
MRBP states that the AFDB considered the applicant (and another Air Force officer) for award of the AmnM on 7 Aug 2009 and disapproved the award, recommending downgrade to the AFCM for an act of courage. Also included in the file was the AFBCMR request for upgrade to the AmnM. The Board acknowledges the act of courage and personal sacrifices of the applicant on 6 Jan 2008; however, we believe his commander acted within his authority in determining the AFCM was the most appropriate...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01070
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 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 offices 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. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05558
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Pararescueman (PJ) Team Leader received the AmnM for performing duties that all pararescue team members performed. On 2 Aug 12, the Board considered and granted the Pararescue Team Leaders request for award of the AmnM for his actions during Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02188
In support of his request, he provides copies of the AFCM, the AFCM Special Order G-3, the AFCM citation and a personal letter from the survivor to the Mississippi National Guard Adjutant General. The AFCM is awarded for outstanding achievement or meritorious service, or acts of courage that do not meet the requirements for award of the Airmans Medal. It has been more than 30 years and the applicant has not provided any documentation to support he felt there was an error or injustice in...
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...