RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00965 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Aerial 
Achievement Medal, fourth through tenth oak leaf clusters (AAM 
4th thru 10th OLCs). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In Aug 09, ten months prior to his retirement, several 
nominations for his receipt of the AAM award were submitted by 
his commander; however, the decoration nominations were not 
processed in a timely manner. He has made several attempts to 
coordinate the awards with the personnel section and was recently 
advised to pursue completion through the AFBCMR. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of 
electronic mail messages, decoration citations and sortie mission 
flight sheets. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 31 May 2010, the applicant voluntarily retired from active 
duty for maximum service or time in grade. He served 20 years 
and 1 day on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDR makes no recommendation. DPSIDR states the AAM was 
established by the Secretary of the Air Force on 3 Feb 88 and is 
awarded by the Department of the Air Force to U.S. military and 
civilian personnel for sustained meritorious achievement while 
participating in aerial flight. The achievements must be 
accomplished with distinction above and beyond that normally 
expected of professional airman. 

 


Under the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA), Section 526, which was enacted into law on 10 Feb 96, the 
original or reconstructed written award recommendation is 
required for the recommended individual. The recommendation must 
be made by someone other than the member (preferably the 
commander or supervisor at the time of the act of heroism) with 
firsthand knowledge of the member’s accomplishments. The 
recommendation must include the name of the decoration (i.e. AAM 
w/10 OLC), reason for recognition (i.e. sustained meritorious 
achievement while participating in aerial flight); include dates 
and narrative description of the act. The recommendation must be 
signed by the recommending official and be referred by a member 
of Congress. 

 

DPSIDR notes the applicant has not exhausted all of his 
administrative avenues in agreement with the NDAA. DPSIDR states 
if someone has firsthand knowledge of his accomplishments and 
achievements, that individual may act as the recommending 
official. 

 

The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 30 Apr 12, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

SAF/MRBP notes the applicant provided documentation to support 
the required number of flight test missions to award the AAM for 
two periods of service: 26 Apr 06 to 4 Oct 06 and 14 Jul 09 to 
21 Dec 09 and recommends approval of OLCs for these periods only. 

 

MRBP notes the applicant provided unsigned memorandums from the 
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Southern Europe 
Commander recommending him for the AAMs. 

 

The HQ AFDW criteria for award of the AAM for Flight Test sorties 
is 30 test missions for each AAM. The applicant has not provided 
AFTO 781, Mission Data, forms as evidence of his flight 
accomplishments from 5 Oct 06 to 13 Jul 09. MRBP states without 
the supporting evidence, award of the AAM for this period is not 
warranted. 

 


The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant provided signed decoration packages for the AAM 4th 
through 10th OLCs. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Based on the applicant’s latest submission, SAF/MRBP recommends 
approval of the applicant’s request for the AAM 4th through 10th 
OLCs (Exhibit H). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. We note the OPR’s comments concerning the 
requirements of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1130 (10 
USC § 1130), enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 1996 National 
Defense Authorization Act. However, we do not agree that such 
avenues must be first exhausted prior to seeking relief under the 
provisions of 10 USC § 1552. As previously noted by this Board 
in decisions concerning this issue, 10 USC § 1130 clearly states 
that, “Upon request of a member of Congress…the Secretary shall 
make a determination as to the merits of approving the award…” – 
it does not require that an applicant must do so prior to 
submitting a request under the provisions of 10 USC § 1552. 
Moreover, we find their interpretation of 10 USC § 1130 
contradicts the very intent of Congress in establishing service 
correction boards 65 years ago, i.e., to remove their required 
involvement and avoid the continued use of private relief bills, 
in order to affect such corrections to military records. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of injustice to warrant awarding the 
AAM w/4th through 10th OLCs. In this respect, we note SAF/MRBP 
recommends granting the applicant’s request based on his latest 
submission of his approved DÉCOR 6 and his Commander’s 
recommendation letters. Therefore, we 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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was awarded 
the Aerial Achievement Medal, 4th through 10th oak leaf clusters. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 7 Mar 13, 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 in AFBCMR BC-2012-
00965: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 18 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 3 Jan 13 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jan 13. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jan 13, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit H. Electronic Mail, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 Feb 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair