AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01034 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  previously  awarded  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal  (AFCM)  be 
upgraded to the Airman's Medal (AmnM). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
Due  to  the  mismanagement  and  excessive  delays  of  the  awards 
processing  within  his  former  unit,  the  AmnM  was  denied  for 
himself and two other airmen for their heroic actions.  
 
He  recently  discovered  he  could  apply  for  relief  through  the 
AFBCMR. 
 
In  Dec  1998,  he  and  two  other  airmen  were  on  temporary  duty 
(TDY)  as  crew  chiefs.    While  performing  flight  inspections  on 
two  aircraft,  they  noticed  a  German  police  helicopter  flying 
during  a  heavy  snowstorm.    The  helicopter  went  into  a  hover 
approximately  70  yards  from  their  position  and  plunged  50  feet 
to the ground. 
 
Immediately  after  hitting  the  ground  the  aircraft  started  to 
break  apart  throwing  debris  in  all  directions.    The  main  rotor 
blades  disintegrated  and  several  pieces  came  very  close  to 
hitting their aircraft.  
 
They  made  their  way  to  the  wreckage  and  immediately  determined 
the  seriousness  of  the  event.    The  engines  were  still  winding 
down and they could hear the igniters firing.  He saw that there 
was a great deal of fuel spilling from the fuselage and knew the 
potential for flash fire was highly likely.  He also knew that 
getting  the  aircrew  out  of  the  wreckage  was  paramount.    They 
removed  the  side  access  door  and  moved  several  pieces  of 
equipment out of their way.  They found a passenger in the rear 
of the helicopter who had obvious back injuries, as well as the 
pilot  and  copilot  who  were  still  in  their  seats.  Both  pilots 
were pinned underneath the aircraft's instrument panel.  After a 
few minutes, the engines shut down completely and all electrical 
power  seemed  to  be  off.    Because  of  the  foregoing  factors  and 
the  ongoing  snowstorm,  they  decided  to  keep  the  victims 
immobilized inside the wreckage and wait for emergency crews who 
arrived at the scene about five minutes later and took over the 
rescue operation. 

 

 

 

2 

Communication was difficult because of the language barrier and 
they  were  never  officially  interviewed  as  part  of  an  accident 
investigation board. 
 
A  newspaper  article  about  the  crash  mentioned  that  airfield 
personnel  assisted  with  the  crash  but  they  were  not  identified 
as U.S. Air Force personnel.  The language barrier and the fact 
that  they  left  from  their  TDY  location  shortly  after  the  crash 
could  explain  why  their  role  in  the  rescue  was  not  recorded 
accurately in German newspapers. 
 
The  entire  incident  was  over  in  less  than  20  minutes.    They 
later learned that all three of the aircrew survived the crash.  
 
When they returned from their TDY, a load master who was at the 
airfield on the day of the crash was pursuing the AmnM for him 
and the other two airmen involved.  
 
Six months after the crash, he began asking questions about the 
medals  and  discovered  that  although  the  citations  were  written 
for  the  AmnM,  the  process  was  never  completed  by  the  squadron 
they were assigned to. 
 
One  year  after  the  crash,  a  new  superintendent  arrived  who 
questioned them about the events surrounding the crash and AmnM 
submissions.    He  learned  the  AmnM  could  no  longer  be  processed 
because  the  policy  at  the  time  was  that  medals  involving 
heroism/volunteer  risk  of  life  had  to  be  initiated  within 
60 days of the event. 
 
The  superintendent  believed  they  deserved  some  kind  of 
recognition for their heroism and decided to pursue the AFCM for 
"acts  of  courage"  because  it  could  be  approved  at  the  group 
level. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement, copies of electronic communiqués, witness statements, 
approved citations, photographs and newspaper articles. 
 
His 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 senior master sergeant (SMSgt, E-8). 
 
The AmnM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States  or  foreign  military  personnel  who,  while  serving  in  any 
capacity  with  the  US  Air  Force,  distinguish  themselves  by 
heroism involving voluntary risk of life under conditions other 
than those of actual conflict with an enemy. 
 

 

2 

In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2803,  The  Air  Force  Awards  and 
Decorations  Program,  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel 
Council (SAFPC) approves or disapproves recommendations for each 
decoration  or  unit  award  requiring  SAF  approval.    SAFPC 
determines upon approval, entitlement to 10 percent increase in 
retirement  pay  for  the  Silver  Star  (SS),  the  Distinguished 
Flying  Cross  (DFC),  and  the  AmnM  when  awarded  to  enlisted 
members for extraordinary heroism. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial.  DPSIDRA states the applicant's 
actions  on  7  Dec  1998,  although  commendable,  do  not  appear  to 
meet the criteria for award of the AmnM.  He has exhausted all 
administrative channels.  According to email traffic dated 5 Sep 
2011,  the  current  approval  authority,  the  352nd  Special 
Operations Group, stated "As there is no way to verify/validate 
the assertion that [the applicant] was deserving of an AmnM and 
his group commander at the time provided him an AFCM for the act 
of  courage.    I  don't  see  how  I  can  rationally  override  [the 
former group commander’s] decision 13 years later." 
 
The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  strongest  evidence  that  can  be  found  is  in  one  of  the 
approved  citations.    The  phrase  “voluntary  risk  of  life,"  was 
not taken out of his citation when the AmnM was re-written as an 
AFCM.  This oversight confirms that the original decision was to 
pursue the AmnM, but the awards process was mishandled. 
 
The  delay  between  the  actual  event  and  when  the  AFCM  was 
actually  approved  shows  a  failure  in  processing  the  AmnM.    He 
presented a time line of events that took place over a period of 
one and one half years that delayed the submission of the AmnM.  
By the time the process was fixed, the AmnM could no longer be 
submitted  because  of  submission  policy  restrictions.    Due  to 
this  delay  the  commander’s  only  recourse  was  to  award  him  the 
AFCM.  The OPR concluded that their actions on 7 Dec 1998, did 
not  appear  to  meet  the  criteria  for  the  award  of  AmnM.    He 
respectfully  disagrees  with  this  evaluation  and  does  not 
understand  how  crawling  into  the  wreckage  of  a  helicopter  with 
fuel  spilling,  engines  winding  down,  and  the  risk  of  explosion 
at  any  moment  not  be  characterized  as  "voluntary  risk  of  life" 
and  therefore  constitute  the  award  of  AmnM.    He  and  the  other 
airmen  involved  displayed  extraordinary  heroism  that  day  by 
putting their lives in danger and there are three German aircrew 
members alive because of it. 
 

 

 

 

4 

His complete response is at Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
SAFPC  recommends  denial.    SAFPC  states  the  applicant  claims  an 
injustice  occurred  due  to  the  delayed  processing  of  the 
decoration  nomination  that  resulted  in  the  award  of  the  AFCM, 
However,  there  is  no  documentation  to  verify  an  injustice 
occurred. 
 
The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit G. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Both  advisory  opinions  have  referenced  the  current  commander’s 
negative response to upgrade the AmnM because he did not want to 
override  the  previous  commander’s  decision.    The  injustice  did 
not  occur  at  the  group  level,  but  at  the  squadron  level.    The 
medal was written as an AmnM, but due to his squadron’s failure 
to process the decoration within a specific timeframe, the AmnM 
medal could no longer be pursued. 
 
Had the squadron followed through with the AmnM processing, the 
former  commander  would  have  seen  and  approved  the  awards.    The 
AmnM packages were never forwarded to the group level because of 
the squadron's failure; therefore the AmnM was never afforded to 
him  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  at  the  time  of  the 
injustice.  He has offered evidence that points to the original 
intentions  of  the  people  involved  with  the  incident  to  pursue 
the  AmnM.    He  has  also  presented  evidence  (attached  e-mail) 
stating the original awards process was mishandled. 
 
The loadmaster who originally submitted the AmnM has provided a 
memorandum dated 12 Dec 2012. This memo is exactly the evidence 
required  to  prove  that  the  AmnM  was  originally  pursued  and  the 
injustice  that  occurred  during  its  processing.    The  medal 
citations  and  justification  letters  were  turned  over  to  his 
squadron  for  processing  and  that  is  where  the  injustice 
occurred. 
 
The  approved  citations  confirm  he  and  his  fellow  crew  members 
voluntarily  put  their  lives  in  danger.    One  of  the  approved 
citations  actually  states  "voluntary  risk  of  life,"  which  is 
what all of their original citations read before citations were 
changed to the AFCM for “acts of courage.”  The AFI states that 
the AmnM will not be awarded for "normal performance of duties." 
Rushing  to  the  scene  of  a  possible  aircraft  explosion  is 
anything but normal. 
 

 

4 

He  does  not  believe  his  squadron's  failure  to  process  their 
original  AmnM  was  malicious;  however,  that  does  not  change  the 
fact that an injustice did occur. 
 
His complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.    After  a 
thorough review of the available evidence, we are not persuaded 
the  award  of  the  AmnM  is  warranted.    While  the  email  from  the 
former  loadmaster  who  initially  submitted  the  AmnM  is  duly 
noted, we do not find it sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force  Offices  of  primary 
responsibility  (OPRs).  The  Board  acknowledges  the  act  of 
courage and personal sacrifices of the applicant on 7 Dec 1998; 
however, we believe his commander acted within his authority and 
purview  in  determining  the  AFCM  was  the  most  appropriate  award 
for  his  efforts  at  that  time,  rather  than  the  AmnM.    While  we 
note the administrative delay in processing his award, we do not 
find any evidence that would convince us to conclude that he was 
entitled to a higher level award.  While we are not unmindful or 
unappreciative  of  the  applicant’s  service  to  our  Nation,  we  do 
believe  his  commander's  decision  to  award  the  AFCM  was  not  an 
error  or  injustice  and  therefore,  find  no  reason  that  the 
decision  should  be  disturbed.    Therefore,  we  agree  with  the 
opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  OPRs  and  adopt 
their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  the  applicant 
has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.    In  the 
absence of persuasive 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  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  injustice;  that 
the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and 
that  the  application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

 

6 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  in  Docket  number 
BC-2012-01034  in  Executive  Session  on  15  Jan  2013,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
    , Panel Chair 
    , Member 
    , Member 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-01034: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 26 Apr 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Rebuttal, Applicant, dated 21 May 2012. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAFPC, dated 27 Nov 2012. 
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 29 Nov 2012. 
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Dec 2012, w/atch. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 

 

6