RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02746
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM).
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was recommended for the AAM; however, the original submission
was not submitted properly. The Awards and Decorations office at
his former base either lost or neglected to submit the decoration
package. He changed duty locations and service components, but
was told the AAM would be mailed to him; however, he never
received it. His former unit, the 9th Airlift Squadron (9AS),
agrees that he should be awarded the AAM and submitted a new
package; however, the current wing commander would not endorse the
package due to the amount of time that passed. His current unit
attempted to submit a decoration package; however it was rejected
because the service was completed with another unit.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
electronic communiqués, AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration
Deployment/Contingency Operations; Dover C-5 Mission History
Reports, and various other documents related to his request.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
__________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The AAM, established by the Secretary of the Air Force on 3 Feb
1988, is awarded by the Department of the Air Force to U.S.
military and civilian personnel. It is awarded for sustained
meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight. The
achievement must be accomplished with distinction above and beyond
that normally expected of professional airmen. Approval or
disapproval authority is delegated to wing commanders for military
and Secretary of the Air Force for civilians. MAJCOMs will
identify the missions and positions that qualify for this award.
The United States Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF) Decoration
Guide provides procedures for all Air Force and Joint Service
decorations based solely upon service, performance, or
achievements in direct support of the USCENTAF missions to include
Operations SOUTHERN WATCH, ENDURING FREEDOM, IRAQI FREEDOM and
future operations as determined by the Commander, USCENTAF
(COMUSCENTAF).
__________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that there is no
Special Order or signed recommendation in the applicants
record. None of the applicant's chain of command has signed
documentation either supporting or recommending the applicant
for the AAM. To grant the applicant relief would be contrary to
the eligibility criteria established by AFI 36-2803, The Air
Force Awards and Decorations Program.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The 9AS Awards and Decorations office advised him that the
criterion for award of the AAM is 20 combat sorties. He has
provided evidence that shows he flew over 24 combat missions. He
reiterates his previous contentions that while he qualified for
the award, the decoration was never submitted. In further support
of his request, the applicant provides an AAM Citation, mission
reports, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty; Enlisted Performance Reports and various other
documents related to his appeal.
The applicants 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of
the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe that relief
is warranted. According to the USCENTAF Decoration Guide dated
27 Dec 2004, USCENTAF had an established policy whereby the AAM
was awarded upon the completion of every 20 combat missions. The
mission reports provided by the applicant reflect he flew
20 missions. Moreover, the applicants Enlisted Performance
Report indicates that he met this criterion by flying 30 combat
missions. In view of this and noting the USCENTAF decoration
policy in effect at the time, we find the applicant met the
criterion for award of the AAM. Accordingly, 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 AAM for meritorious achievement for the period from 4 Jun
2000 to 6 Nov 2002, while flying 20 combat missions in support of
Operations SOUTHERN WATCH and ENDURING FREEDOM and the "Given
Under My Hand date will be 15 Dec 2002.
__________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 25 Mar 2014, 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-2013-
02746:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Aug 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 2013.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 2013, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04003
In addition to being the 455th Expeditionary Operations Group (EOG) Commander, he was the A-10A flight leader and expended live ammunition in direct support of the 82nd Airborne Division and U.S. Army Special Operations units. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DPSID recommends the request be denied and that the applicant submit for a one-time reconsideration of the CAM to USAFCENT in order to exhaust the available administrative remedies....
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02607
On 14 Nov 14, SAF/MRBR sent a letter to the applicant, advising him he had not exhausted other administrative avenues prior to requesting relief from the AFBCMR. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE finds no error or injustice in the applicants record in regards to the applicants request for the AM (4OLC 8OLC) to be retroactively applied to his promotion consideration. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Dec 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02297
Per USCENTAF Decoration Guidebook dated 27 Dec 04, A2.9, the MSM is awarded for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or service to the United States. When the eligibility requirements for the law and the USCENTAF guidebook are compared, the facts quoted in the DPSID advisory make him eligible for the BSM. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03542
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR indicated that after a complete review of the documentation provided by the applicant, they were unable to find any evidence of a recommendation from the applicant’s chain of command. The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) has designated the Commander, USCENTAF (COMUSCENTAF) as the approval authority for all Air Force decorations based solely upon service, performance, or achievements...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03948
His corrected record, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB). In support of his request the applicant submitted copies of his DLAB and DLPT scores, USCENTAF Form 1, Air Medal (AM) and Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) Mission Information Justification Sheet, citations for the Air Medal Second and Third Oak Leaf Cluster, a memorandum from his commander and supporting documents. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01840
The applicant's chain of command resubmitted the recommendation, however, on 22 Sep 2009, the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board determined, that although the recommendation was commendable, it did not meet the requirements for the DFC. DPSID states the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board has considered the request twice and disapproved/downgraded the recommendation to an AM. Regarding his request for the DFC for the Laos mission, although he and another pilot provided statements on the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02624
While it is noted the applicants AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations, dated , does not mention the BSM, and the applicant does not have a recommendation for upgrade from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement, preferably from someone within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, or eyewitness statements, AFPC/DPSIDR believed based on the MSM recommendation package the applicant's actions were at...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00314
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00314 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the United States Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM) with Valor. In support of his request, the applicant provided an AF IMT 3994 (Recommendation for Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations) dated 17 January...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05324
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05324 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Medal (AM), dated 30 October 2012 be changed to reflect a date prior to 8 June 2009. While it is noted there were significant delays in between when the act occurred and when the applicant received award of the AM, no documentation has been presented demonstrating a recommendation package for the AM was...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). (2) Applicant has not submitted any documentation to substantiate his claim that he re- submitted a recommendation for the Air Medal or a request for reconsideration to upgrade the Aerial Achievement Medal to the Air Medal, or any responses to such submissions. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for his Aerial...