RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01371 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His official records be corrected to reflect that: 

 

1. He was released from active duty due to “Combat Related 
Disabilities.” 

 

2. He was promoted to the rank of Technical Sergeant (E-6). 

 

3. He was awarded the following awards and decorations: 

 

 a. The Army Good Conduct Medal (GCM) with three bronze 
loops. (Already reflected on his DD Form 214, dated 3 Feb 61) 

 

 b. The United Nation Service Medal (UNSM)(Korea). (Already 
reflected on his DD Form 214, dated 5 Feb 55) 

 

 c. The Korean Service Medal (KSM) (Already reflected on 
his DD Form 214, dated 5 Feb 55). 

 

 d. The Republic of Korean Presidential Unit Citation 
(RKPUC). (Already reflected on his DD214, dated 5 Feb 55) 

 

 e. The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). 

 

 f. The Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). 

 

 g. The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). 

 

 h. The Air Medal (AM). 

 

 i. The Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) with three Bronze 
Oak Leaf Clusters (3BOLC). 

 

 j. The Purple Heart (PH) Medal. 

 

 k. The Senior Missile Badge. 

 

 l. The Senior Aircrew Member Badge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was released from active duty on a medical discharge per the 
recommendation from the Flight Surgeon due to combat-related 
disabilities. He suffered an acute concussion and a separated 
shoulder when he was run over by a taxi on the flight line. 
Further, during a flight to Seoul, South Korea, his sinus 
cavities were severely injured when the aircraft made a rapid 
descent from 12,000 feet. He was hospitalized for a week with a 
bloody nose and sinus injuries. Both his severe concussion and 
nasal cavity problems were combat related. 

 

He was promoted to Technical Sergeant, but was released before 
the rank took effect. 

 

His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of 
the United States, is in error because it does not accurately 
reflect the awards and decorations he earned during his Air 
Force career. His DD Form 214 is missing the GCM with three 
loops, UNSM, KSM with a Bronze Arrowhead and two BSSs, RKPUC, 
AFEM, VSM, AFCM, AM, PUC with three BOLCs, PH Medal, Senior 
Missile Badge, and Senior Air Crew Member Badge. 

 

He received the AFCM from the Commandant of the Missile School 
for receiving such high grades. The AM was presented to him in 
Japan. He flew 28 combat missions and 55 combat support 
missions, enough for two AMs. With the changes in the criteria 
for award of the PH, he believes he qualifies for the PH for 
both the concussion and the disabling nasal cavity injury. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered active duty on 6 Feb 51. 

 

He was progressively promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant 
(E-5) on 1 Jun 55. He was Honorably discharged in said grade on 
3 Feb 61 for convenience of the government and was credited with 
9 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service. 

 

On 21 Jul 11, AFPC/DPSIDR notified the applicant the GCM w/3 
Bronze Loops, the UNSM (Korea), the KSM, and the RKPUC are 
already reflected on the two DD Form 214s in his record. In 
addition, they were able to verify his entitlement to the Bronze 
Arrowhead Device and Two Bronze Service Stars (BSS) for his 
previously awarded KSM, the Korean War Service Medal (KWSM), and 
the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA) with one BOLC. The 
applicant’s records are being administratively corrected to add 


one Bronze Arrowhead Device and 2BSS to his existing KSM, the 
AFOUA w/1BOLC, and the KWSM. 

 

However, AFPC/DPSIDR determined that he was not eligible for the 
remaining requested awards. Under no conditions can personnel 
receive the KSM and the AFEM for the same action. Therefore, 
because he was awarded the KSM, he is not eligible for award of 
the AFEM. As for his request for the VSM, a member must have 
served at least 30 days in Thailand, Cambodia, or Vietnam 
between 3 Jul 65 and 28 Mar 73 to be eligible; however, his date 
of separation of 3 Mar 61 makes him ineligible for the VSM. As 
for his request for the PUC, a review of his complete record 
could not identify where any of the units he was assigned to 
received the PUC during the period of time he served with the 
unit. Therefore, he is not eligible for the PUC. As for his 
request for the AFCM and AM, the applicant submitted no 
documentation or evidence that he was ever officially awarded 
the AFCM or the AM, and no citations, special orders or 
certificates could be located in his official military record to 
substantiate that he was awarded either the AFCM or AM. As for 
his request for the PH Medal, a member must be injured by the 
enemy or by direct result of enemy action. However, the 
detailed justification he provided indicates he was not injured 
by the enemy or as a direct result of enemy action. Therefore, 
he is not eligible for award of the PH Medal. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR) and AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
correct his records to reflect he attained the rank of TSgt, 
indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The 
applicant contends he was promoted to TSgt, but he was released 
from active duty before the rank took effect. The applicant was 
promoted to the rank of SSgt with an effective date of 1 Jun 55. 
He was discharged on 3 Feb 61 in the rank of SSgt. He never 
“pinned on” and actually wore the rank of TSgt before his 
discharge; therefore, he is not entitled to the rank. In 
addition, the applicant’s request was not filed within the 
three-year time limitation for AFBCMR applications. Finally, 
the applicant’s request may also be dismissed under the 
Equitable Doctrine of Laches, which denies relief to one who has 
unreasonably and inexcusably delayed asserting his claim. The 
applicant waited more than 50 years after his discharge to 
petition the AFBCMR. Recommend denial based on his untimely 
submittal, and because the applicant provides no official 
documentation to support his contention. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 


AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial, indicting there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. On 15 Aug 11, the member was sent a 
memorandum from AFPC/DPSIM requesting additional documentation 
to substantiate his claim. He was asked to provide 
documentation of training in the launching of land based nuclear 
weapons, but did not provide supporting documentation. The Air 
Force Missile Badge recognizes those commissioned officers of 
the US Air Force (both Tactical and SAC ICBM) who have been 
trained in the launching of land based nuclear weapons under the 
direction of the National Command Authority. The Missile Badge 
is awarded as a permanent decoration upon a service member's 
graduation from missile operations or maintenance officer 
training. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the 
applicant’s requests for his medical conditions of a concussion 
and a severely disabling nasal cavity to be designated as 
combat-related, as well as for award of the PH. In order for 
the applicant to receive a medical discharge, there must be an 
illness or injury that precludes the reasonable performance of 
the duties of the office, grade, rank, or rating that imposed a 
dedicated risk to his health and well being as well as others, 
if retained, or resulted in worldwide disqualification of a 
sufficient duration and level of duty restriction, among other 
determinants of unfitness. However, the evidence is 
insufficient to reflect that either of these claimed conditions 
rendered the applicant medically unfit at the time of his 
release from military service on or about 3 Feb 61. In fact, no 
evidence is provided to indicate the applicant received, or 
should have received a medical discharge, as would be reflected 
in service treatment records, narrative summaries, or imposed 
physical profile restrictions. Nor is there evidence, e.g., 
witness statements from credible sources, flight reports, 
accident reports, and service treatment records that 
corroborates the applicant’s claim of sustaining injuries which 
he believes qualifies him for the consideration for combat-
related disability. Moreover, the available evidence does not 
reflect the applicant received, or should have received, a 
Medical Evaluation Board and referral to a Physical Evaluation 
Board for a disqualifying or unfitting medical condition. 
Further, other than the applicant’s personal statements, no 
evidence is supplied that reflects the applicant was unable to 
reasonably perform his military duties at the time of his 
release from military service nor is there evidence of 
inadequate job performance caused by a medical condition. In 
regard to a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability 
rating, unlike the DVA, which offers compensation for any 
medical condition determined to be service incurred [operating 
under Title 38, U.S.C] without regard to its impact upon a 
member’s fitness to serve or narrative reason for release from 
service, the military Disability Evaluation System, operating 
under Title 10, U.S.C., only offers compensation for and when 
one or more medical conditions causes career termination; and 
then based only to the degree of impairment present at the “snap 


shot” time of final military disposition, and not upon future 
occurrences. Thus, the mere presence of a medical condition 
does not automatically render a member medically unfit for 
continued military service or unable to complete a term of 
enlistment. Pertaining to the request for the award of a purple 
heart, the Medical Consultant found a lack of proof that his 
injuries were caused by the enemy or were a direct result of 
enemy action and a lack of documentation to substantiate medical 
treatment was received; or a statement from a medical officer 
attesting that an examination revealed that an injury of the 
type incurred would or should have received medical treatment. 
In summary, the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an 
error or injustice to warrant the requested changes to the 
record. 

 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In Feb 12, the applicant provided an expanded statement in which 
he responds to several of the Air Force advisories, and provides 
additional documentation. The very condition that the AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant cites, “Barotrauma,” is exactly the condition 
that he is rated 100% disabled for by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA). He provides a letter from the DVA authorizing 
his use of commissaries and exchanges which cites his 
100 percent service-connected disability rating. In addition, 
he was one of the first military personnel to receive the Air 
Force Missile Badge, which was not restricted to officers at the 
time. He was the lone Air Force Technical Inspector and 
responsible for the Atlas D & E, plus he was the Project Manager 
for all Titan One Technical Orders and Manuals. He filled a 
major’s position and had a nine-level qualification. He 
provides multiple documents showing his completion of training 
courses related to rockets, missiles, and missile maintenance; a 
May 58 photograph he claims is of the group of the first 
recipients of the “AF Missile Badge;” and, a 2004 Membership 
Directory for the “Association of Missileers” reflecting his 
last name as being associated with the Atlas ICMBs. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s Feb 12 letter, with 
attachments, is at Exhibit G. 

 

On 2 May 12, the applicant provided another expanded statement 
requesting his DD214 be changed to read “Separation for Medical 
Retirement.” The basis for this request is that the DVA 
assessed him to have a service-connected disability evaluated at 
100 percent. He is entitled to the PUC with 2 BOLC for his time 
with the 61st Troop Carrier Squadron, 314th Troop Carrier Group, 
314th Troop Carrier Wing, Ashiya, Japan, in 1953-1954. He 
received the AM after completing 28 Combat Missions and 
55 combat support missions in Korea, in Combat Cargo. He should 


be eligible for the PH for “Barotrauma” suffered in a mission to 
K-16 Seoul during enemy bombing of that base. He also has been 
rated as disabled for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He 
provides his DVA disability paperwork. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s 2 May 12 letter, with 
attachments, is at Exhibit H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice regarding the 
following requests made by the applicant: 

 

 a. The Purple Heart (PH) Medal, a medical disability 
discharge, and having his service connected disabilities 
designated as combat related. We took notice of the applicant's 
complete submission, including his rebuttals, in judging the 
merits of these requests; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice with regard to his 
request to have his service connected disabilities designated as 
combat related, a medical disability discharge, or for awarded 
the PH. 

 

 b. Promotion to the grade of Technical Sergeant. 
Regarding this request, we note the comments of AFPC/DPSOE 
indicating the applicant’s records indicate he was discharged in 
the rank of Staff Sergeant and the applicant has presented no 
evidence whatsoever to indicate he was ever selected for 
promotion or served in the higher grade. We agree with their 
recommendation to deny this request and adopt the rationale 
expressed as the basis for our determination that this requested 
relief be denied. 

 

 c. Request for multiple awards and decorations. The 
applicant requests entitlement to the Armed Forces Expeditionary 
Medal (AFEM), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), Air Force 
Commendation Medal, Air Medal (AM), and the Presidential Unit 
Citation with three bronze oak leaf clusters (PUC w/3BOLC). 
Regarding these requests, we agree with the determination of 
AFPC/DPSIDR that these requests should be denied and find the 
evidence the applicant presented is insufficient to establish he 
is qualified for these particular awards. We note that 
AFPC/DPSIDR has determined the applicant’s record already 


reflects his entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal (GCM) 
with three bronze loops, the United Nations Service Medal 
(Korea), Korean Service Medal (KSM), and Republic of Korea 
Presidential Unit Citation (RKPUC). Therefore, no action is 
required by this board in regard to these specific awards. In 
addition, AFPC/DPSIDR was able to verify his entitlement to the 
Bronze Arrowhead Device and two Bronze Service Stars (BSS) for 
his previously awarded KSM, the Korean War Service Medal (KWSM), 
and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with one BOLC (AFOUA 
w/1BOLC) and has corrected his records administratively. 

 

 d. Senior aircrew member badge. We note the senior 
aircrew badge is awarded for achieving the 7-level qualification 
or for cumulative flight hours. However, the applicant’s 
records indicate the highest level he served in was the 5-level 
in AFSC 43151B and he has submitted no evidence to establish 
that he achieved the requisite skill level in his AFSC or 
accumulated sufficient flying hours to qualify for award of the 
senior aircrew member badge. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
this specific request. 

 

4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the applicant qualifies for award 
of the senior missile badge. We note the comments of AFPC/DPSIM 
indicating there is no evidence the applicant met the criteria 
for the badge; however, in view of the documentation provided by 
the applicant in response to the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, we are 
convinced that a preponderance of the evidence indicates the 
applicant was indeed qualified for award of the senior missile 
maintenance badge and therefore believe it appropriate to 
resolve any doubt in the applicant’s favor in this respect and 
recommend his records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show he was 
awarded the Air Force Senior Missile Badge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01371 in Executive Session on 20 Nov 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 


All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 11, w/atch 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 28 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 23 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Feb 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair