RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05558
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Airman’s Medal (AmnM) for his actions 
following the 2010 Earthquake in Haiti.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Pararescueman (PJ) Team Leader received the AmnM for 
performing duties that all pararescue team members performed.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of the 
Record of Proceedings and the directive for the team leader’s 
correction; Power Point presentation from the Air Force Special 
Operations Command (AFSOC) of Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE; letter 
from Team Leader; denied AmnM citations and narratives, 
memorandum of earthquake operations, reconsideration memorandum 
from AFSOC/cc; electronic mail from Virginia Task Force One (VA-
TF1) Article and various other documents associated with his 
request.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in Port-au-Prince, Haiti as a Pararescue 
team member while assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron, 
in direct support of Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE, from 13 to 
23 Jan 10.  The five man team was attached to the Fairfax County 
Urban Search and Recovery team while in Haiti.

On 5 May 10, the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB) considered 
and denied the applicant’s request for award of the AmnM.  On 
2 Nov 11, the AFDB reconsidered and denied the Air Force Special 
Operations Commander’s (AFSOC/CC) request for reconsideration 
for the AmnM.

On 2 Aug 12, the Board considered and granted the Pararescue 
Team Leader’s request for award of the AmnM for his actions 
during Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE.  On 17 Sep 13, the Board 
denied the applicant’s request for entitlement to a 10 percent 
retirement pay increase.

The AmnM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States or foreign military personnel who, while serving in any 
capacity with the United States Air Force, distinguish 
themselves by heroism involving voluntary risk of life under 
conditions other than those of actual conflict with an enemy.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant 
and his team were organized, trained, and equipped to perform 
rescue and recovery operations.  In addition, they were on 
orders and tasked to provide civil search and recovery in 
response to the earthquake devastation in Haiti.  While the 
applicant’s acts and achievements in performing this mission are 
noteworthy and may have been beyond the scope of normal duties, 
the AmnM is not the appropriate recognition.  However, other 
military decorations such as the AF Commendation Medal (AFCM) or 
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) may be more appropriate.

MRBP notes that the nomination package on the applicant was 
reviewed by the AFDB twice previously and recommended for 
downgrade.  When disapproving award of the AmnM to the 
applicant, the AFDB recommended the achievements be recognized 
with a decoration in the purview of the nominating command, such 
as an Air Force Commendation Medal or Meritorious Service Medal. 
There is no evidence that command took action to award either of 
these medals to recognize his actions.

According to Air Force Instruction 36-2803, The Air Force Awards 
and Decorations Program, the AmnM is awarded for "voluntary risk 
of life under conditions other than those of conflict with an 
armed enemy of the US.  The saving of a life or the success of 
the voluntary heroic act is not essential.  Do not award for 
normal performance of duties" (emphasis added).  Further, MRBP 
notes that according to the Commandant of the Pararescue School, 
a two-week training course is offered on Structural and Confined 
Spaces.  However, it is not a requirement for mission 
qualification or upgrade training.  Collapsed structure 
principles are taught on shoring techniques and setting up 
mechanical advantage rope rescue systems to retrieve rescuers in 
the event they become incapacitated.

The BCMR application does not contain any additional substantial 
information regarding the applicant's actions while deployed to 
Haiti that was not previously available to the AFDB.

The Pararescue team was tasked to deploy to Haiti in support of 
earthquake relief efforts.  However, the team deviated from 
their original orders/mission, leaving the airport to assist the 
Fairfax County Rescue Squad.  Although there is evidence of risk 
of life for entering the damaged buildings, it is unclear 
whether the individuals would have been censured for refusal to 
proceed.

The BCMR approved the AmnM for another member of this team. 
However, there is no documentation that reflects the BCMR's 
rationale.  There is evidence of other Pararescue team members 
being recognized with the AmnM for earthquake relief actions, 
including Oakland, CA, in 1989, and the Philippines in 1990. 
However, only the citations for the individuals involved are 
available.  Pertinent information from the complete decoration 
package considered by AFDB including the status, roles, 
responsibilities, background, experience, and training levels is 
not available.

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a letter from the Team Leader (recipient of the AmnM), he 
notes several discrepancies in the advisory opinion, 
specifically, regarding references to their training in 
Structural and Combined Spaces.  Because of the devastation in 
Haiti, this training was not useful which made this a more 
hazardous and dangerous mission.  He notes that the applicant or 
any of the PJ would not have been censured for refusing to enter 
any one of the many structures and that most individuals receive 
the AmnM for one act of courage.  The PJ's in Haiti did multiple 
acts of heroism, that is well documented by AFSOC leadership’s 
power point presentation, video and narrative recommendation for 
the award, which were included with the initial and resubmitted 
award packages and had been researched and proven from all that 
witnessed the applicant's and the other PJ’s actions during 
Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE. 

As documented in (BC-2012-00124), the Board ruled “The actions 
involved voluntary risk of life, under extreme conditions, 
against insurmountable odds."  This can truly be said for the 
applicant’s actions along with the other two PJ's on his team.  
How much more "rationale" does MRBP need?  Senior AFSOC leaders 
reviewed the job duties/description compared to their actions in 
Haiti and all agreed that the Pararescue Team, to include the 
applicant, deserved the AmnM.  The team was interviewed multiple 
times by senior enlisted and commissioned officers in AFSOC 
before they submitted the medal recommendation a second time.  
There is a vast amount of evidence enclosed in the initial and 
resubmission package that he honestly feels was not reviewed.  
No one would have submitted the applicant or the PJ Team for the 
AmnM if AFSOC leadership did not think their actions warranted 
it.  The AFSOC leadership reviewed the applicant's and all PJ's 
in Haiti's actions individually and determined they all had 
specific instances that each one performed alone or with other 
team members to warrant this award.  Even the Career Field 
Manager was "extremely excited" about the outcome of the Board 
results and assumed, as did AFSOC leaders, that the other three 
PJ’s would receive the same recognition that he received.

In support of his appeal, the Team Leader provides letters of 
support, with attachments; letter of commendation from the 
AFTER Chief of Staff, and other supporting documents.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
corrective action.  We note that the AmnM was awarded to the Team 
Leader and the applicant believes relief should be granted on the 
same basis.  After carefully reviewing the available evidence, it 
is our opinion that the applicant’s request should be approved.  
In this respect, we note that each member of the team played an 
equal role in the mission’s success.  Moreover, their individual 
acts of heroism were consistent with those of the Team Leader and 
involved the same voluntary risk of life under extreme conditions 
against insurmountable odds.  While SAF/MRBP recommends denial 
stating the AmnM is not the appropriate recognition, we find the 
evidence is sufficient to recommend approval for the AmnM.  
Although not requested by the applicant, generally, when an AmnM 
is awarded, SAFPC determines entitlement to a 10 percent increase 
in retirement pay.  In view of this, we considered the applicant 
for the additional pay; however, we did not find substantive 
evidence that his actions on the days in question rose to the 
level of "extraordinary," as required to be considered for award 
of the 10 percent increase in retired pay.  Therefore, we find no 
basis to recommend approval for entitlement to an additional 
10 percent increase at retirement.  Accordingly, we recommend the 
applicant’s record be corrected to the extent indicated below.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was 
awarded the Airman’s Medal for his heroism involving voluntary 
risk of life while participating in Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE 
from 13 January 2010 to 23 January 2010.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05558 in Executive Session on 31 Jan 14, 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 8 Nov 12, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 18 Sep 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 Sep 13.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Team Leader, dated 14 Oct 13, w/atchs.




                                   Panel Chair