RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	  DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04003
		  	  COUNSEL:  NONE
   	  		  HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Combat Action Medal (CAM).  

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was qualified but not submitted for award of the CAM for    
A-10A combat missions flown from Bagram Air Base (AB), 
Afghanistan in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) from 
6 Nov 2002 to 1 Jun 2003.  

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.  He flew 54 combat 
sorties in Afghanistan.

He earned this medal for his A-10A combat sorties on an 
extended, voluntary deployment.  He commanded 500 personnel, the 
U.S. Air Force compound and flight operations at the toughest 
air base in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).  

The CAM was not authorized until 15 Mar 2007.  At this time, he 
had just returned from another deployment and was in a demanding 
position.  In Apr 2008, he reinjured his back and has had many 
medical procedures.  He has spent four years submitting paper 
work to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his medical 
issues.  For these reasons, he is late in submitting his CAM 
application and hopes that his request will not be discounted 
because it was submitted late.

He submitted his CAM package in Jan 2013 and was told that the 
Decoration Recommendation (DÉCOR 6) was completed but that 
United States Air Forces Central Command (USAFCENT) had to 
approve his package.  USAFCENT responded that they were not 
responsible for retired personnel and would not consider his 
application.  His package was sent back to him but all that 
arrived was an empty envelope.  He requests the Board make a 
“yes” or “no” decision on his CAM.  He was the commander and 
thus there was only a brigadier general above him in his chain 
of command.  The CAM application is one of the most important 
medals of his career.  He believes he has met all the criteria 
and more. 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the 
CAM application, ARPC/DPTS letter, AF IMT 3994, Recommendation 
for Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations; a personal 
statement, USAFCENT Form 1, Air Medal (AM) and Aerial 
Achievement Medal (AAM) Mission Information-Justification Sheet; 
NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service; DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; 
Bronze Star Medal (BSM) certificate and citation and various 
other documents associated with his request.

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Jul 2008, the applicant was retired from the Pennsylvania 
Air National Guard (PAANG).

On 15 Mar 2007 the Secretary of the Air Force approved 
establishment of the Air Force CAM to recognize any military 
member of the Air Force (airman basic thru colonel) who actively 
participated in combat (ground or air).  The principal 
eligibility criterion is that the individual must have been 
under direct and hostile fire while operating in unsecured space 
(outside the defended perimeter), or physically engaging hostile 
forces with direct and lethal fire. 

On 15 Jan 2013, ARPC/DPTS in a letter to the applicant provided 
the instructions on how to submit the CAM award package to 
USAFCENT and advised him that the Board would not consider a 
case until all avenues of administrative relief have been 
exhausted.

In a letter dated 17 Dec 2013, the USAFCENT Decoration 
Processing Unit advised the applicant his request for the CAM 
was disapproved but In Accordance With (IAW) DODM 1348.33, 
Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, C3.3.7 and AFI 36-
2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, para 3.3.8, he 
could submit a one-time request for reconsideration of the 
original award. 

________________________________________________________________ 

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.  The 
applicant’s request for the CAM was forwarded to USAFCENT.  On 
16 Dec 2013, USAFCENT disapproved the request stating the 
justification did not support the recommended award but the 
applicant has one year from the date of the disapproval to 
submit new relevant documentation not previously submitted for a 
one-time reconsideration. In order for the one-time 
reconsideration to be reasonably considered, the applicant needs 
to provide new relevant documentation not previously considered 
within one year (16 Dec 2013) [sic].  To grant relief would be 
contrary to the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, the 
Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff.  

The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He wants to emphasize several points and correct the 
misunderstandings in the evaluation.  He was the 455 EOG 
Commander from 11 Nov 2002 until Jun 2003.  He flew 54 combat 
missions in the A-10A, his A-10 sorties in OEF include convoy 
escort, aircraft/helicopter escort, over flight of small Special 
Forces units, pre-planned close air support, missions with NATO 
forces and mostly flying the U.S. Army fortress on the 
Afghanistan and Pakistan Border.  On 12 Mar 2003, his flight of 
two A-10s came to the direct aid of an Army convoy requesting 
immediate Close Air Support (CAS) from an ambush of Taliban 
terrorists.  On another mission, his flight flew at extremely 
low altitude to deter cars from entering a town in support of a 
Special Forces raid on a heroin processing house.  In another 
operation, he dropped flares over a suspected Taliban leader’s 
house in the middle of the night.

He submitted the CAM package in the spring of last year and was 
told initially that the DÉCOR 6 for the award was already 
completed but that AFCENT had to approve the package.  AFCENT 
said that they were not responsible for noncurrent personnel.  
In Afghanistan as the 455 EOG Commander there was only a 
brigadier general above him in the chain of command.  He has no 
way of knowing where the generals in his chain are or if they 
have since retired but they would vouch for the information he 
has provided.  He is submitting this evidence now in order to 
receive an important medal.  He has fulfilled all of the CAM 
criteria and more.  

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

________________________________________________________________ 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not 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 error or injustice.  In this 
respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level 
of appeal within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must 
first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief 
provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief 
before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force 
Instruction.  The Air Force office of primary responsibility has 
reviewed this application and indicated there is an available 
avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first 
pursued.  In view of this, we find this application is not ripe 
for adjudication at this level, as a subordinate level of appeal 
exists that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of 
the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________ 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
that 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 Docket Number BC-
2013-04003 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

 , Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member

The following pertinent documentary evidence was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jan 2014, w/atch.  
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Feb 2014.  
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 2014, w/atchs. 




 
                                   Panel Chair