RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03891 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect that he was awarded the 
Airman’s Medal (AmnM), instead of the Air Force Commendation 
Medal (AFCM), for his heroic actions on 15 Aug 85. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On 15 Aug 85, his actions were heroic in nature and involved the 
risk of his life. His heroic actions in coming to the aid of a 
police officer in distress warrant award of the AmnM. In 2009, 
he discovered he had been recommended for the award of the AmnM, 
but said award was downgraded to the AFCM for outstanding 
achievement. He was not aware he had even been considered for 
the AmnM. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel 
record, which include documents related to his original 
recommendation for the AmnM, AFCM certificate and special order, 
and an enlisted performance report (EPR), as well as military and 
civilian letters and certificates of appreciation and press 
coverage related to the matter under review. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

While serving on active duty in the Regular Air Force, the 
applicant was awarded the AFCM for outstanding achievement on 
3 Sep 86 for his actions in coming to the aid of a civilian 
police officer on 15 Aug 85. 

 

The AmnM was established 6 Jul 60, and 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, has 
distinguished himself or herself by a heroic act, usually at the 


voluntary risk of his or her life but not involving actual 
combat. The saving of a life or the success of the voluntary 
heroic act is not essential. The AmnM is not awarded for normal 
performance of duties. 

 

The AFCM is awarded to service members who, while serving in any 
capacity with the Air Force after 24 Mar 58, shall have 
distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement or service. 
Per the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2803, The Air Force Awards 
and Decorations Program, the AFCM can be awarded for outstanding 
achievement or meritorious service; or acts of courage that do 
not meet the requirements for award of the AmnM or BSM, and 
sustained meritorious performance by crew members. 

 

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 has provided a 
detailed personal statement describing the incident, an 
evaluation of the criteria for the AFCM, and AmnM; as well as 
civilian documentation from the Denver Academy of Court Reporting 
(DACR), the City and County of Denver, Denver Police, and letters 
from his chain of command. The documentation provided attests to 
the courage the applicant showed in aiding a police officer. 
The applicant's documentation, notes that the original citation 
for the disapproved AmnM was the same as the citation for the 
subsequent AFCM, after removal of all references to courage and 
risk of life. The applicant contends the AmnM citation was 
truthful and correct; however, it was altered to meet the 
criteria for the AFCM. He believes his actions of 15 Aug 85 met 
the criteria for the AmnM, and was diluted to match the criteria 
for the AFCM, and he further believes this action created an 
injustice. The applicant did not provide any official 
documentation establishing the existence of an "informal policy" 
limiting the award of the AmnM. DPSIDR was unable to locate the 
reason for the disapproval and downgrade of the AmnM in the 
applicant's military personnel record. No recommendation was 
provided or located for upgrade from the AFCM to the AmnM. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He believes the act of fighting an armed suspect who had badly 
beaten a veteran police officer and was in the process of 
murdering him characterizes courage and the fact that he was 
going to murder the police officer with a gun involved voluntary 
risk of life. He believes it was an injustice that he was not 
awarded the AmnM and asserts it was an error to award him the 
AFCM. 

 

His observations were not intended to convey a certainty that an 
informal policy existed so much as he intended them to convey 
what he was told as the rationale for AFCM instead of an AmnM. 

There is no paper that he has seen that indicates the AmnM was 
downgraded, in fact, there is no supporting documentation on the 
AmnM with the exception of a citation that was converted in 2009 
and appeared in ARMS. If any official documentation existed, he 
would have pursued an upgrade, via an Inspector General 
Complaint, or request a Congressional Inquiry. Unfortunately, it 
is as though it never happened at all, which seems to him an 
injustice in and of itself because for an Airman’s Medal to be 
disapproved in the system, there should be supporting 
documentation. The advisory reads as if he obtained a 
recommendation for upgrade or if the official documentation could 
have been found, there would have been a recommendation for 
approval of the upgrade of the AFCM to an AmnM. There should 
have been a paper trail from origination of the decoration 
package through disposition, but that data simply does not exist. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

SAF/MRBP recommends denying the applicant’s request to upgrade 
his AFCM to an AmnM. MRBP notes the AFCM can be awarded for 
meritorious service, outstanding achievement, or an act of 
courage. Air Force policy at the time of the act allowed for 
award of the AFCM for an act of courage and therefore MRBP 
recommends changing the AFCM from "outstanding achievement" to 
"act of courage". The documentation provided reflects the 
applicant was nominated for award of the AmnM for his act of 
courage and heroism on 15 Aug 85. The documentation also 
reflects the AmnM was "DISAPPROVED.” The stamped disapproval 
indicates that the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB), the 
approval authority for this decoration, had considered the 
applicant for the decoration and it was disapproved by AFDB. 
The citation reflects the AFDB returned the decoration to the 
Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) to notify the nominating 
organization of the decision. The AFDB is the approval 
authority for this decoration and it is not delegated for 
approval at a lower level. Had the decoration been disapproved 
or downgraded at a lower level (Wing or Major Command), the 


AFPC recognition section would not have processed the 
decoration for AFDB consideration. At the time of the AFDB all 
available documentation, including witness statements and 
commendations were reviewed and considered. Further, as part 
of this advisory, documentation provided by the applicant and 
in the case file was reviewed for reconsideration of the AmnM. 
Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and in the 
AFBCMR case file, the AFDB properly considered the applicant 
for the AmnM and appropriately disapproved this level of 
recognition. An additional current review by the AFDB was 
accomplished and the AFDB concurs with the previous decision of 
the 1986 board. The AFDB considered and determined that the 
applicant’s heroism did not rise to the level required for 
award of the AmnM, due to lack of eyewitness statements 
(corroboration), and the applicant's statement of events 
provided with his application appear to embellish the events as 
documented in statements provided at the time of the act. 

 

The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He is disappointed in the advisory opinion that fundamentally 
accuses him of lying, misstating facts and patently discounts the 
veracity of written statements from the Denver Chief of Police 
and the Denver Deputy District Attorney. The statement by the 
Director, SAF Personnel Council impugns his character and makes 
clear a bias against his statements without citing any specifics 
and is unfairly prejudicial. He is a Chief Master Sergeant with 
30 plus years of service, 10 plus years time in grade and finds 
it unconscionable that an advisory would make a written statement 
that calls his integrity and ethics into question and does so 
without specificity. He hopes the advisory opinion will be 
stricken from consideration unless the author is prepared to 
bring specifics that he will be allowed to answer; otherwise, the 
comments are inflammatory, judgmental, and prejudicial. 

 

The value credibility of the statements from the Chief of Police 
and the Deputy District Attorney meets the criteria of 
corroboration because the first is based on a police officer's 
statement to another police officer (Chief of Police) and the 
second is written by a Deputy District Attorney based on the 
sworn testimony of all four people present on that day and is 
further supported by a verdict from a jury in the criminal case. 
It is hard to imagine other sources could provide better 
corroboration because both are public officials operating under 
oath and bound by law to be honest. Both written statements 
clearly indicate he exhibited courage, risked his life by helping 
to stop the police officer from being murdered by an armed 
suspect. 

 


The applicant’s complete response, 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 warranting 
award of the Airman’s Medal (AmnM). After a thorough review of 
the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, 
including his responses to the advisory opinions rendered in his 
case, we are not persuaded that failure to award him the Airman’s 
Medal makes him the victim of an error or injustice. While the 
applicant argues his actions were heroic and warranted award of 
the AmnM, we are not convinced the Air Force Decorations Board 
(AFDB) that originally considered the recommendation erroneously 
determined that his actions, while courageous, were more 
appropriately recognized by the AFCM. In this respect, we note 
the comments of SAF/MRBP indicating the AFCM was, and still is, 
an authorized form of recognition for an act of courage and the 
AFDB acted properly and within its discretionary authority when 
downgrading his recommendation for the AmnM to the AFCM. We note 
that while the applicant may have been recommended for the 
Airman’s Medal, the Air Force Decorations Board was vested with 
the responsibility and authority to determine whether a 
recommendation should be approved. While the applicant may 
disagree with their decision, he has not provided sufficient 
evidence to show that the AFDB’s decision exceeded its 
discretionary authority or was arbitrary and capricious. 
Nevertheless, the current AFDB again reviewed the applicant’s 
file, but also determined that award of an AFCM was proper. We 
find it regrettable the applicant considers their review of his 
appeal to be “unfairly prejudicial;” however, we do not agree and 
based our determination in his appeal on whether sufficient 
evidence of error or injustice has been presented. 

 

4. Notwithstanding the above, we agree with the recommendation 
of the SAFPC to change the reason for award of the AFCM from 
“outstanding achievement” to “act of courage.” Therefore, in 
the interest of justice we recommend the applicant’s records be 
corrected to the extent indicated below. 

 

5. 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 RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 
3 September 1986, he was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal 
(AFCM) for an act of courage, rather than for outstanding 
achievement, for his actions on 15 August 1985. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03891 in Executive Session on 26 Jun 12 and 
17 Jul 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

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

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR dated 31 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 10 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 25 May 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair