Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05886
Original file (BC 2012 05886.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05886

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The number of days in combat on his Officer Efficiency 
Report (OER) rendered for the period of 1 Jul 44 to 31 Dec 44, 
in Item C. Stations at Which Officer Served and Duty 
Assignments, block listed as “Days,” be changed from “Blank” 
to “31 and an “X” be placed in the block listed under “Staff” as 
“Combat.”  (Contested report was not found in the Master 
Personnel Record (MPR)).

2.  The number of days in combat on his OER rendered for the 
period of 1 Jan 45 to 30 Jun 45, in Item C. Stations at Which 
Officer Served and Duty Assignments, block listed as “Days,” be 
changed from “Blank” to “59 and an “X” be placed in the block 
listed under “Staff” as “Combat.”. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the record to be in error or unjust because he was 
placed on flight status from 1 Dec 44 to 28 Feb 45; was awarded 
the Air Medal for frequent flights over the Japanese empire for 
that period; was serving as a warrant officer in the Army Air 
Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
temporary duty (TDY) orders; aeronautical order, and order for 
award of an Air Medal.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Aug 61, the applicant was relieved from active duty and on 
1 Sep 61, was retired from the Regular Air Force in the grade of 
major.  He was credited with 21 years, 2 months, and 5 days of 
active duty service.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change any sections of the contested OER.  The applicant has not 
provided evidence that the evaluation was unjust or wrong at the 
time that they were written.  In addition, DPSID notes that they 
were not able to locate the OER with the inclusive period 
1 Jul 44 through 31 Dec 44.

The applicant requests that a correction be made to change Days 
of Combat = “0" to Days of Combat = “3l" on his OER for the 
period of I Jul 44 to 31 Dec 44.  He further requests that a 
correction be made to change Days of Combat = “O" to Days of 
Combat = “59" on his OER for the period of 1 Jan 45 to 
30 Jun 45.  

DPSID carefully reviewed the applicant's personnel record; 
however, while they were able to locate the OER with the 
inclusive period of 1 Jan 45 through 30 Jun 45, based on the 
limited evidence the applicant provided, it appears that the 
days the applicant desires to correct were not actual "Combat" 
days as the applicant was a weather observer officer on weather 
reconnaissance missions, not Combat missions.  Furthermore, it 
appears the applicant was supporting reconnaissance missions 
which does not equate to Combat missions, but simply a 
participant of support missions which provides information to 
Combat units.  Support units normally refers to units that 
provide operations assistance to combat elements, as well as 
provide specialized support functions to combat units; these by 
definition would fall under the weather reconnaissance missions; 
therefore it does not appear to justify actual Combat missions.  
Strong evidence must be provided by the applicant to overcome a 
report's presumed validity.  

The applicant does not provide any evidence within his case to 
substantiate the requested changes, and it is clearly not 
supported by the award of the air medal as there is no mention 
of combat responsibilities.  Based on the absence of any 
evidence provided by the applicant, DPSID finds no justification 
to change the combat days and recommend that any sections of the 
OER remain unchanged.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 24 Feb 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the merits of the case; however, we do not find his assertions, in 
and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter.  
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05886 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Feb 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13.




                                   Panel Chair

3

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02940

    Original file (BC 2013 02940.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02940 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect his Korean and Vietnam service. The applicant’s AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, reflects that on 14 Feb 55 he was sent to the 45th TRS, Korea. The complete DPAPP...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01991

    Original file (BC 2013 01991.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    NPRC records do not show he was awarded the Aerial Gunner Badge or the Aircrew Member Badge. However, he was awarded both since he completed training and served in a unit that completed combat missions. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. USAF/A3O-AIF recommends approval of the request for the Aircrew Member Badge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00021

    Original file (BC-2012-00021.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, E, and G. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove his 19 Feb 2010 FA from the AFFMS. DPSIM states the applicant is requesting his FA dated 19 Feb 2010 be removed from the AFFMS. The complete DPSID evaluation, with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01274

    Original file (BC 2014 01274.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant contends that because he was assigned to the 93rd Bomb Group, and said unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC), his records should be corrected to reflect...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200101

    Original file (0200101.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He stated that the DFC was awarded for completion of 35 combat flight missions. Therefore, the basis for the applicant’s claim that all other crew members of the 2 Oct 44 combat flight mission received the DFC is unsubstantiated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration through his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 03890

    Original file (BC 2011 03890.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the BSM w/1OLC, PH w/3OLCs, CIB, PUC w/2OLCs, PRPUC, APCM and Gold Star Lapel Ribbon On 5 Dec 13, the PH Review Board reviewed and approved the applicant’s request that his uncle be awarded the PH. While we have no documentary evidence that confirms, with any certainty, what period the former member was assigned to the 3rd...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101031

    Original file (0101031.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He recommended the applicant for award of the DFC. A second crewmember (position unidentified, but held the rank of first lieutenant) provided an affidavit stating he had received the DFC “as did several other members of this crew.” He also recommended the applicant be awarded the DFC for his accomplishments as tail gunner and provided a proposed citation. After a thorough review of the evidence presented, to include the statements from members of the applicant’s crew, we are sufficiently...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02530

    Original file (BC-2012-02530.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02530 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His late uncle’s records be corrected show that he was posthumously awarded two Bronze Star Medals (BSMs), and was entitled to the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), three Presidential Unit Citations (PUCs), formerly known as Distinguished Unit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03799

    Original file (BC-2002-03799.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant's available military personnel records indicate that he was appointed a second lieutenant, Army of the United States (Air Corps) and entered on active duty on 3 Nov 43. Holland was neutral. SAF/GCI indicated that the instant case involves Holland, a belligerent country, that was occupied by enemy forces at the time of the applicant’s internment.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05131

    Original file (BC-2012-05131.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Furthermore, the several supporting statements she provides are more than sufficient to establish that her deceased father sustained a qualifying injury when his plane was shot down by the enemy. While we note the comments of the Air Force office of primary responsibility indicating that such entries could relate to combat or non-combat related injuries, we find it substantially more likely that these wounds were the result of enemy action and therefore met the criteria for the award of the...