RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01516
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect the award of the Air Medal with four
Oak Leaf Clusters (AM w/4OLC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received the medals while under the command of the 8th Tactical Fighter
Wing while assigned temporary duty (TDY) to 7th Aerial Port, Taiwan.
In support of the application, the applicant submits his personal
statement.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Oct 65 for a period
of four years. He was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-
4). On 24 Feb 69, he was honorably discharged after serving 3 years, 3
months and 28 days on active duty.
Based on information found in a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) supplemental
sheet for the period of 15 Oct 67 thru 15 Dec 67, the applicant flew 70 out-
of-country combat missions and approximately 400 hours of combat time. In
Mar 66, the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) announced a change to the Air Medal
criteria for sustained operational activities in Southeast Asia, stating a
requirement of ten missions for each AM without regard to type of mission
of degree of combat exposure.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial based on the guidelines outlined in
Section 526 of the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA). DPSIDR states, in part, there is no evidence, i.e., special
order, recommendation, or proposed citation, to support the applicant’s
request for the AM w/4OLCs.
Under Section 526 of the FY96 NDAA, enacted into law on 10 February 1996,
the original or reconstructed award recommendation is required for the
recommended member. In addition, the recommendation must be made by
someone, other than the member, with firsthand knowledge, preferably the
commander or supervisor at the time of the act or achievement. The
recommendation must be signed by the recommending official, include a
proposed citation, and include statements from comrades or eyewitnesses
attesting to the act or achievement.
The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jul
09, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations. Although the office of primary responsibility recommends
denial of the requested relief since the applicant has not submitted his
request under the statutory provisions of Section 526 of the FY96 NDAA, we
find no requirement that he do so since such consideration can only be
initiated at the request of a member of Congress and he has applied for
correction of his military records under the statutory authority provided
in Title 10, Section 1552 of the United States Code Title 10.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice warranting award of the Air Medal, with Six
Oak Leaf Clusters (AM, 6 OLCs). In this respect, we note the applicant’s
official military records contain a Letter of Evaluation, rendered for the
period 15 October 1967 through 15 December 1967, which indicates that he
flew 70 out-of-country combat missions, totaling approximately 40 hours of
combat time. We also note that in the preceding year, the major Air
Command to which the applicant was assigned, i.e., Pacific Air Forces
(PACAF), announced a change to the Air Medal criteria for sustained
operational activities in Southeast Asia; thereafter, requiring the
completion of ten missions for each AM, without regard to the type of
mission or degree of combat exposure. Although the applicant seeks
correction of his records to reflect that he was awarded a total of five
AMs, i.e., AM, 4 OLCs, in view of the established PACAF policy during the
period in question and given the total number of missions he completed, we
recommend his records be corrected to reflect award of a total of seven
AMs.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 16 December 1967, he was awarded
seven Air Medals (Basic through Sixth Oak Leaf Cluster) for meritorious
achievement while participating in sustained aerial flight during the
period 15 October 1967 through 15 December 1967.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR BC-2009-01516 in
Executive Session on 12 January 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Apr 09, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 12 Jun 09.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jul 09.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03420
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03420 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect: 1. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants military service records, are contained in the evaluation by...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00003
According to the applicants WD AGO Form 53-55, filed in his master personnel record, he was awarded the AM w/4 OLC, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal and the Purple Heart. DPSIDR states there are no special order, recommendations, proposed citation, or any other evidence provided by the applicant or located within his official record to support his submission for the award of the DFC and the AM w/5 OLCs based on the number of missions flown. Should the applicant provide further evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00958
On 14 Aug 43, General Arnold sent a memorandum to all Theater Commanders which revised the policy for award of the DFC. Under the revised policy, the DFC could be awarded for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00958
On 14 Aug 43, General Arnold sent a memorandum to all Theater Commanders which revised the policy for award of the DFC. Under the revised policy, the DFC could be awarded for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01082
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his DD Form 214, his retirement order, his certification of combat flying time and missions and his non-rated individual flight records. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit B. Although we find his actions which led to his award of the Air Medal with one oak leaf cluster commendable, we see no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this case.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01041
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial and states, in part, that although it appears the applicant may have a credible claim, without any verifiable documentation within his military records to indicate that he was formally recommended, or awarded the DFC for the events that occurred on 13 November 1952, they must recommend disapproval based on the guidelines of Section 526 of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01938
The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jun 12 for review and comment within 30 days. Moreover, a review of his flight records and the special orders awarding the AM (Basic) and AM, 1 OLC, indicate that he was awarded these AMs after completion of 35 combat missions. As such, based on the evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 00965
DPSIDR states if someone has firsthand knowledge of his accomplishments and achievements, that individual may act as the recommending official. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBP notes the applicant provided documentation to support the required number of flight test missions to award the AAM for two periods of service: 26 Apr 06 to 4 Oct 06 and 14 Jul 09 to 21 Dec 09 and recommends approval of OLCs for these periods...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03134
However, his 100-mission certificate, dated 19 Jan 72, was filed in his personnel records to reflect the additional combat sorties. The AF Form 11 is an obsolete form that cannot be updated, but the applicant’s 100-mission certificate has been filed in his personnel records as proper credit for the additional combat sorties. Neither the applicant’s records nor his submission provide convincing evidence he was ever recommended for or awarded the AM 4OLC.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02487
The recommendation must be made by someone, other than the member himself, preferably the commander or supervisor at the time of the act or achievement, with firsthand knowledge of the members accomplishments. The recommendation must include the name of the decoration (i.e., DFC), reason for recognition (heroism, achievement, or meritorious service), inclusive dates of the act, and a narrative description of the act. _________________________________________________________________ The...