Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03252
Original file (BC-2012-03252.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03252 

COUNSEL: NO 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect award of the Small 
Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received the SAEMR in 1970 at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served on active duty from 11 July 1968 through 21 April 1972. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that in accordance 
with Department of Defense Manual 1348.33-M, the SAEMR was 
authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force on 28 August 1962. 
It is awarded to all United States Air Force service members who 
after 1 January 1963, qualified as “expert” in small-arms 
marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle or issue handgun. 
Qualification as “expert” in both weapons after 22 June 1972 
shall be denoted by a bronze service star worn on the service 
ribbon. 

 

DPSID indicates that after a thorough review of the applicant’s 
military service record, they were unable to locate official 
documentation verifying he qualified as “expert” with either the 
handgun or the M-16 rifle. In addition, there is no official 
documentation verifying the applicant completed the Combat Rifle 
Program. 

 


The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 1 October 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D). As of this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03252 in Executive Session on 16 April 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03252: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 12. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Sep 12. 

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03134

    Original file (BC 2012 03134.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSID states the SAEMR is awarded to all Air Force service members who, after 1 Jan 1963, qualify as "expert" in small arms marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle or issue handgun. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03433

    Original file (BC-2012-03433.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSID states that the SAEMR is awarded to all Air Force service members who, after 1 Jan 1963, qualify as "expert" in small arms marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle or issue handgun. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 24 Sep 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03952

    Original file (BC-2012-03952.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the Presidential Unit Citation, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award and the Air Force Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00081

    Original file (BC-2013-00081.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 21 March 1960, the applicant was issued an Air Form 741, Small Arms Qualification Record, which indicates he qualified as a “sharpshooter,” but did not qualify as a “marksman” or an “expert”. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05391

    Original file (BC 2012 05391.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the SAEMR indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The SAEMR is awarded to all Air Force service members who after, 1 Jan 63, qualified as “expert” in small...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04710

    Original file (BC-2012-04710.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04710 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be updated to reflect award of the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR) and any other awards he may be eligible to receive. The remaining...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02775

    Original file (BC-2012-02775.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The SAEMR is awarded to all Air Force service members who, after 1 Jan 63, qualify as “expert” in small-arms marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle or issue handgun. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 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 other than the administrative correction made to his records, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05626

    Original file (BC-2012-05626.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05626 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows: 1. DPSIDR states after a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record they were unable to verify any additional awards he may have...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04499

    Original file (BC 2013 04499.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is awarded to all Air Force service members who, after 1 Jan 1963, qualify as "expert" in small-arms marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle or issue handgun. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the SAEMR. Upon final Board decision, administrative correction of his official military personnel record will be completed by AFPC/DPSOR.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00226

    Original file (BC 2013 00226.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00226 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. After considering the applicant’s statement, his commander recommended the applicant for discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient...