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.  

His Officer Selection Records (OSR) and Officer Selection Briefs (OSB) considered by the Calendar Years 2009B (CY09B), 2010A (CY10A), and 2011A (CY11A) Lieutenant Colonel (0-5) Selection Board (CSB) be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Medal prior to 8 June 2009.  

Based on these corrections, he be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant colonel (05).  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He flew combat missions into Afghanistan in 2002, qualifying him for award of the AM.  Upon his return from Afghanistan he had a permanent change in station to Canada and within one year he followed up to determine the status of his medal. However, all his unit documentation had been destroyed and his personal files were misplaced due to relocation.  After years of searching, his combat flight records were restored in May 2012 and in October 2012 United States Air Force Central Command (USAFCENT/AFCENT) subsequently approved award of his medal.  Yet, it was not added to his records until October 2013.  

His non-selection for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel during the contested calendar years is contributable to the absence of the AM in his OSBs during the review of his OSR.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of major (04).  
On 8 Dec 11, AMC/TE requested approval to award the applicant a basic Air Medal because it was substantiated that he accomplished the ten required missions for the award.  Specifically, from 2000 – 2002, the applicant deployed twice, accumulated 37 combat flights, and 52 combat support flights.  He wrongly assumed the squadron would track his missions and submit the basic Air Medal paperwork.  He did not discover the error until Sep 2004.  However, in accordance with 36-2803, recommendations must be placed in official channels within two years and awarded within three years of the end date of the act, achievement or service performed.  In 2010, his former Wing Commander encouraged him to re-apply using an “exception to policy” memo. 

On 30 Oct 12, the applicant was awarded an AM for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flights during the period 29 Jan 02 to 10 Mar 02.

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


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends disapproval.  They were unable to verify an error or injustice existed in the applicant’s award of the Air Medal.  USAFCENT/AFCENT processed the request in a timely manner upon receipt.  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 placed in official channels in a timely manner, but was lost or delayed due to no fault of the applicant.  The Director, Air Mobility Command (AMC) Test and Evaluation indicated the applicant wrongly assumed the squadron would track his missions and submit the AM paperwork on his behalf, which resulted in a significant delay in submitting the request.  To grant relief would be contrary to established criteria by DoDM 1348.33 Manual of Military Decorations & Awards, the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff, and/or the War Department.   However, should the Board decide to grant the relief sought, they must decide the date. 

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

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial in regards to the applicant’s request for SSB consideration.  In this case, the applicant has five non-selections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0509B, P0510A, P0511A, CY12A (5 Mar 12) (P0512A) and CY13A (18 Mar 13) (P0513A) Lieutenant Colonel CSBs.  In accordance with AFPC/DPSID, they were unable to verify an error or injustice in the award of the applicant’s AM.  They further obtained a memorandum from AMC Test and Evaluations which indicated the applicant wrongly assumed the squadron would track his air missions and submit the Air Medal paperwork to the squadron for processing.  However, he did not discover the error until September 2004.  Furthermore, AFPC/DPSID indicated there was a significant delay in submitting the applicant’s request for the AM even after it was discovered that he had not yet been submitted for the award.  No documentation was provided verifying efforts between 2004 when the applicant discovered he should have submitted his flight information to his squadron, and 2012 when the AM was approved.   Should the Board decide to grant the relief sought, recommendation is that the “Given Under My Hand” date on the Air Medal citation be adjusted to a date prior to 8 Jun 09 so that the citation can be filed in the applicant’s P0509B, P0510A, and P0511A OSRs and annotated in the corresponding OSBs.   

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

SAF/MRBP concurs with AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request to correct his Officer Selection Brief or changing the “Given Under My Hand” date of his AM awarded in 2012.  The applicant did not provide documentation that showed he was actively pursuing award of the AM from 2002.  Additionally, there is no documentation showing that the original package was placed into official channels in 2002 or in a timely manner. 

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant argues deployed aircrew members flew as fixed teams and the standard way for processing Air Medals for the Air Mobility Command were for them to be tracked and submitted as “aircrew teams”.  As aircraft commander, he followed this practice, timely submitted all required documentation and was ensured the crew paperwork was in order.  However, somehow all five other members of his crew received the Air Medal and his was the only one to be misplaced.  Unfortunately, there is little evidence of his “ten plus year” struggle to obtain his Air Medal.  When he discovered the omission, he was unable to locate and submit the documentation in time.  Although, he was told “no” at every juncture, he continued to ask questions and look for hope.  However, most of his correspondences were via telephone or in person.  He spoke with USAFCENT, AFPC Records (in person at Randolph in 2008) and his unit leadership numerous times.  Furthermore, any .mil emails were lost when his email accounts were closed due to permanent change of station four times since 2004.  It was not until the year 2010 that he was advised to pursue an exception to policy memo to articulate his extenuating circumstances and he immediately responded with extreme urgency.  It was a lengthy process since his squadron commander from 2002 had retired.  In addition, he had to acquire letters signed by his commander and top leadership in position at the time of the action.  Had he known to take this course of action in 2004, he would have done so at that time.  In Feb 2012, his Air Medal package was submitted to USAFCENT for approval; however, three months later they had no record of the package.  Consequently, he resubmitted the package and asked his Congressman to help ensure it didn’t get “lost” again.  The applicant further argues there was no specific reference identified from DoDM 13348.33 that established a correction to his Air Medal would be in violation of policy/procedure.  In fact, his Air Medal was granted in 2012, ten years after the actual act was performed.  He indicated that he did all that he could in as timely a manner as possible.  When he discovered the error, he was unable to locate his paperwork within the 2 year limit and was told there was zero chance to obtain the medal.  An error/injustice occurred because he submitted his package with the five other crewmembers and his was not awarded as it should have been.  He earned the Air Medal and sacrifice/endured greatly for it.  In fact, his crew took enemy fire during two night combat missions.  As it stands, he has very little documentation showing what he did to timely submit his package; however, he has integrity and no amount of documentation can ever outweigh its worth.  His word is his bond and he tried everything that he could.  Therefore, he is not looking for favoritism, but fairness.  


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.  The applicant’s complete submission, including his response to the Air Force evaluations, were thoroughly reviewed and his contentions duly noted; however, in our view, the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) have conducted a thorough review of the evidence of record and addressed the issue presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with their opinions and recommendations that relief is not warranted in this case.  The applicant contends that due to lost and destroyed documentation he was not awarded the AM until 2012, for combat missions he flew in 2002.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show the original award package was placed into official channels in 2002 or submitted in a timely manner.  Furthermore, other than his own uncorroborated assertions, he has provided no evidence to substantiate the significant delay it took for him to resolve the issue after his discovery of the potential error in 2004.  As for his request for special selection board consideration, since he has not provided any corroborative evidence to support he was awarded the AM during the contested periods, we do not find the promotion selection board was prevented from reaching a reasonable decision in regards to him being selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.  



THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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-2013-05324 in Executive Session on 16 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05324 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 2 May 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, undated.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Aug 14.  
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Sep 14.