RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03312 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be issued an Airmen’s Medal (AmM), preferably with his 
name on it. 

 

2. His AmM awarded in 1962 be determined to have been awarded 
for extraordinary heroism, qualifying him for a ten percent 
increase in retirement pay. 

 

3. He be promoted to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant 
(SMSgt) as of 1976, based upon the five additional weighted 
points associated with award of the AmM, if his AmM was not 
considered by his SMSgt promotion board. 

 

4. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, be updated to reflect award of the AmM. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He was told in 1962 the medal was in production, but he 
never received it. He would finally like to have the medal with 
his name on it. 

 

2. His actions clearly constitute extraordinary heroism. 

 

3. He missed being selected for promotion to SMSgt by four 
points in about 1976. His AmM was listed on the records check 
in 1972, but he can’t find any indication it was taken into 
consideration at the SMSgt promotion board. 

 

4. At his retirement he asked why the AmM was not reflected on 
his DD Form 214 and was told “not everything is on that form,” 
but it would all be in his records. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant retired from the Air Force on 31 May 78, and was 
credited with 22 years, 01 month, and 07 days of total active 
service. 

 

On 15 Jan 13, AFPC/DPSOY determined the applicant’s DD Form 214 
was incorrect, and directed it be updated to add the Republic of 
Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/P), and to change the 
Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) to read “Vietnam Service Medal with 
four Bronze Service Stars (VSM w/4BSS). 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID does not make a recommendation as to whether or not 
the applicant’s actions constitute extraordinary heroism, but 
defers to SAF/MRBP. On 8 May 62, per Special Order G-44, dated 
11 May 62, the applicant was awarded the AmM for heroism for his 
actions on 6 Sep 61. The applicant’s award of the AmM is 
currently annotated on his DD Form 214, therefore, no update is 
required. According to the policy in place in 1968, at time of 
retirement of enlisted members who received an award for 
extraordinary heroism the Air Force would consider whether the 
member would receive an additional ten percent increase in 
retirement pay. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-
2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, medals are 
only engraved for initial awards made to members posthumously, 
foreign nationals, and Medal of Honor recipients. Therefore, 
the applicant is not eligible to receive an engraved medal. 

 

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

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial based upon the late submittal of 
this application. The application has not been filed within the 
three-year limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board of 
Correction of Military Records, dated 1 Mar 96. In addition to 
being untimely under the statute of limitations, 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 a claim. Laches consists of two 
elements: inexcusable delay and prejudice to the Air Force 
resulting there from. In the applicant’s case, he waited almost 
34 years after retirement to petition the AFBCMR. The 
applicant’s unreasonable delay has also caused prejudice to the 
Air Force as relevant records have been destroyed or are no 
longer available, memories have faded and witnesses are 
unavailable. The applicant mentions the medal was listed in his 


records in 1972. Based on his MSgt date of rank (DOR), he would 
have been considered for promotion to SMSgt once (cycle 78S8) 
before retiring 31 May 78. We would be unable to determine if 
the decoration was used in the promotion process for cycle 78S8 
as promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 
10 years as outlined in AFR 4-20, Records Disposition Schedule. 
Ten years is generally considered an adequate period to resolve 
any promotion inquiries or concerns. Recommend the applicant’s 
request be denied since the AmM would have been considered by 
the 78S8 SNCO Evaluation Board since it had been awarded 
15 years prior to the board. The applicant also had sufficient 
time to inquire about this between award of the decoration in 
1962 and the meeting of the 78S8 Board in 1977. 

 

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

 

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there was no evidence of 
an error or injustice. It is clear from the applicant’s AmM 
citation he earned the medal for heroism and his voluntary risk 
of life, and the applicant was appropriately recognized for his 
heroic action of 6 Sep 61. However, without additional 
documentation, including the applicant’s commander’s 
recommendation and witness statements, there is not enough 
information to determine if the applicant’s actions should be 
credited with extraordinary heroism. 

 

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

1. On the day the base commander presented the AmM to the 
applicant, a lieutenant colonel informed him the AmM was new, 
still in production, and he would receive the medal at a later 
date. He never received it. 

 

2. The applicant was never informed the Air Force was to make a 
determination as to whether he acted with extraordinary heroism, 
and never informed that upon such a determination he would be 
entitled to a ten percent increase in retirement compensation. 
It is clear that no such consideration was ever made. The 
advisory opinion even acknowledges that “it appears more likely 
that the applicant was not considered for the additional ten 
percent upon retirement.” However, the evidence is more than 
sufficient to find the applicant acted with extraordinary 
heroism in the voluntary risk of his own life that saved the 
lives of other servicemen. 

 

3. When the applicant missed the promotion by four points, he 
immediately questioned his superiors about whether his AmM 
points were counted, but his superiors were not interested in 
looking into the issue and repeatedly brushed off his inquiries 
telling him the points were likely counted. In all reasonable 


probability, sometime between 1964 and 1968, the Air Force lost 
track of the applicant’s record of medals and awards. Because 
his DD Form 214 incorrectly excluded his AmM (as well as the two 
medals he received for his service in Vietnam) at the time of 
his promotion, in all reasonable probability, the Air Force did 
not include the five weighted AmM points he should have received 
when he was denied promotion by four points. 

 

4. When he received his DD Form 214 upon retirement, he 
immediately asked the airman who provided him the form why his 
AmM was not on the form. The airman replied “not all awards are 
listed on the DD Form 214,” and he should not be concerned about 
the fact the AmM was not on the form. The Air Force advisories 
seem to conclude the applicant’s AmM was listed on this 1964 
DD Form 214 and, therefore, does not need updating. In fact, 
there is no indication the applicant’s AmM was listed on any DD 
Form 214 after 1964, including 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1978. 
Accordingly, his final DD Form 214 does in fact need to be 
updated. 

 

The applicant’s request should not be barred by the statute of 
limitations or doctrine of laches as he only recently discovered 
the falsity of the airman’s representation that not all awards 
are listed on his DD Form 214. Until he conducted an 
investigation in Jul 12 he did not discover the Air Force 
incorrectly excluded his AmM from his DD Form 214. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit G. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 

 

After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the 
evidence of record, to include the evidence the applicant 
submitted through counsel in rebuttal to the Air Force 
advisories, we find the application untimely. The applicant did 
not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice 
was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, 
Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. The applicant 
has not shown a sufficient reason for the delay in filing. 
While we note the applicant’s contention that he only became 
aware of the applicable extraordinary heroism policy in 2012, 
that policy was in place as far back as 1968, and was clearly 
discoverable over the intervening 34 years prior to his 
application. In addition, the Board notes that promotion 
records are only maintained for a period of ten years after a 
promotion board, therefore, it is no longer possible to verify 
the applicant’s contention that his Airman’s medal was not 
properly utilized during a promotion board in 1978. We are also 
not persuaded the record raises issues of error or injustice 
which require resolution on the merits since under the 
procedures in place at the time of the applicant’s service, 


awards and decorations were only reflected on the initial 
DD Form 214 after award and were not reflected on subsequent 
DD Form 214s. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the 
interest of justice to excuse applicant’s failure to file in a 
timely manner. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

DECISION OF THE BOARD: 

 

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the 
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as 
untimely. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03312 in Executive Session on 14 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Jan 13. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 Mar 13. 

 Exhibit F. SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 13. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Apr 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair