RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-01082
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST:  YES
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The applicant’s request is unclear; however, it  appears  he  is  requesting
additional Air Medals (AM) for combat missions flown while he  was  assigned
duties in Southeast Asia.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States  Report  of  Transfer  or
Discharge, indicates he was awarded the basic AM with one oak  leaf  cluster
(AM w/1OLC); however, his additional combat O-1A  missions  in  1967,  1968,
and 1969 are not reflected.

He flew 20 O-1A combat missions in 1967, 20 O-1A missions in 1968, and 82 O-
1A missions in 1969 for a total of 102 O-1A combat missions.

In Jul 69, he made inquiries regarding the additional AMs and  was  informed
they would be included in his records, but they were not.

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 applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was honorably discharged for retirement  on  31  Oct  69.   He
served 22 years, 9 months and 11 days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial.   DPSIDR  notes  the  applicant  has  made
inquiries through the  National  Personnel  Records  Center  (NPRC)  and  he
submitted a Congressional Inquiry in regard  to  his  additional  AMs.   The
NPRC advised the applicant they were unable to  verify  his  entitlement  to
the additional AMs.  On 20 Feb 08, the Secretary of the Air Force  Personnel
Council (SAFPC), who is authorized to make decisions  in  these  matters  on
behalf of the  Secretary,  reviewed  and  denied  the  applicant’s  request.
SAFPC deemed the individual flight records provided by  the  applicant  were
considered not to be combat sorties; therefore, he could not receive  combat
sortie credit for AM consideration.

AM Criterion:  The AM is awarded to any person who  (while  serving  in  any
capacity with the Armed Forces of the United States subsequent to 8 Sep  39)
distinguishes  themselves  by  heroic  or  meritorious   achievement   while
participating in an aerial flight.  Required achievement is less  than  that
required for the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), but must  be  accompanied
with distinction above and beyond  that  expected  of  professional  airmen.
The AM is not awarded for peace time sustained  operational  activities  and
flights.

The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant disagrees with the comments  and  recommendation  provided  by
SAFPC via DPSIDR.  He flew in unarmed  aircraft  over  enemy  territory  and
used classified maneuvers  to  evade  enemy  missiles.   The  missions  were
recorded as O-1A combat missions by Pacific Air Forces (PACAF).

He questions if the missions were not combat sortie  missions,  why  was  he
and so many others  awarded  AMs?   He  has  met  the  requirement  for  the
additional AMs.  He has provided all  the  documentation  as  proof  of  his
flights.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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.  In this  regard,  we  took  note  that  the  SecAF  Personnel
Council previously considered and denied the  applicant’s  request  for  the
additional Air Medals.  It is our opinion that the SecAF Personnel  Council,
who is authorized to make decisions  in  these  matters  on  behalf  of  the
Secretary, is in the best position to  make  this  determination.   Evidence
has not been provided which would lead us to  believe  that  their  decision
was  erroneous  or  unjust.   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.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
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 this application in  Executive
Session on 9 Nov 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2010-01082:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 10, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 16 Apr 10.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 10.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 May 10.




                                   Panel Chair