Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01359
Original file (BC-2013-01359.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01359
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM).

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFCAM was established for members of the Air Force who 
actively participated in combat from 11 Sep 01 to a date not yet 
determined.  At the time of his retirement in 2005, the AFCAM 
was not established; however, in retrospect, his active duty 
service qualifies him for this medal by virtue of combat sorties 
he flew in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM from 18 Jan 02 to 13 Feb 
02.  During this period, his flight engineer aircrew duties 
often introduced him to combat related demands to include 
calculation of aircraft combat departure performance and Night 
Vision Goggles observer for ground-fire during high terrain air 
refueling.  He had 15 combat sorties and 210.5 flight hours.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the 
AFCAM Fact Sheet and excerpts from his military records.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force on 30 Sep 05 in 
the grade of master sergeant.

On 8 Jul 13, United States Air Forces Central Command 
disapproved the applicant’s request to be awarded the AFCAM.  

AFPC/DPSOR will administratively correct the applicant’s records 
to reflect the following:

	a. Afghanistan Campaign Medal with one Bronze Service Star 
(AfghCM w/1BSS).

	b. Southwest Asia Service medal with one Bronze Service Star 
(SWASM w/1BSS).

AFCAM Criteria:  Individual must be flying as authorized aircrew 
members on aeronautical orders in direct support of a combat zone 
and in combat as defined in combat conditions. Combat must take 
place in a combat zone defined as a geographic area designated by 
the president via executive order or a qualified hazardous duty 
area in which a member is receiving Imminent Danger Pay or Hostile 
Fire Pay. Individual must be physically present, at risk of grave 
danger and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the 
prescribed rules of engagement.  Individual must be performing 
assigned duties.  Traveling passengers, including aircrew 
manifested as passengers, on an aircraft are not eligible based 
solely on their presence if the aircraft were to come under fire. 
The AFCAM may be awarded for qualifying service from Sept. 11, 2001 
to a date to be determined.  Retroactive awards prior to Sept. 11, 
2001 are not authorized.  There is no minimum time-in-theater 
requirement to qualify for the AFCAM.  Only one AFCAM may be 
awarded during a qualifying period. Subsequent qualifying periods 
will be determined by the secretary of the Air Force.  Only one 
award per operation is authorized. Operations Iraqi Freedom and 
Enduring Freedom are considered one operation. Subsequent 
operations will be approved by the Air Force Chief of Staff and 
will be indicated by the use of a gold star on the ribbon and 
medal.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial stating the applicant has not 
exhausted all administrative avenues for award of the AFCAM; the 
applicant may request a one-time reconsideration for his request 
for the medal.  In order for the one-time reconsideration to be 
reasonably considered the applicant needs to provide a complete 
package for consideration which consists of a proposed citation, 
a narrative explanation of the circumstances, recommendation for 
decoration, and if possible eyewitness statements.  
Additionally, a one-time request for reconsideration of the 
original award recommendation must be placed in official 
channels within 1 year from the date of the awarding authority’s 
decision.  The one-time reconsideration by the award authority 
is final.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 Dec 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  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.  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 pursued.  In view of 
this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at 
this level, as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has 
not first been depleted.  Therefore, relief beyond that already 
granted administratively is not warranted.  Accordingly, the 
applicant’s requests are not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________
_

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-2013-01359 in Executive Session on 28 Jan 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2013-01359 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFCENT, dated 10 Jul 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Sep 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair







FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4


2




This document contains information which must be protected IAW AFI 33-332 and DoD Regulation 
5400.11; Privacy Act of 1974 as Amended Applies, and it is For Official Use Only (FOUO).

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00191

    Original file (BC-2010-00191.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He be awarded the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM). After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant's complete submission, we find no evidence that his records should be corrected to show he was awarded the AFCAM. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00191 in Executive Session on 20 Jul 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01932

    Original file (BC-2010-01932.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He be awarded the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM). Only one award per operation is authorized. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01932 in Executive Session on 21 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 10.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2009-00802

    Original file (BC-2009-00802.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Afghanistan Campaign Medal (ACM). However, the award criteria for the ACM states no member shall be entitled to both the GWOT-E medal for that service. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 7 Mar 13, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2009- 00802: Exhibit E. Record of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04346

    Original file (BC-2010-04346.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04346 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended to include award of the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM) and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal (ACM). DPSIDR states that his request for entitlement to the AFCAM has...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05977

    Original file (BC-2012-05977.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to the memorandum from Air Forces Central Command dated 29 October 2009, the applicant’s recommendation for the Air Force Combat Action Medal was disapproved. The applicant was afforded a one- time reconsideration so long as the applicant’s reconsideration request was placed into official channels within one year of the original disapproval date of 29 October 2009. However, should after exhausting his administrative avenue of relief, the applicant feel he is still a victim of an...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01286

    Original file (BC 2013 01286.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. There is no documentation in the applicant’s file which indicates he was awarded the AFCAM. We took notice of the applicant’s complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04003

    Original file (BC 2013 04003.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01261

    Original file (BC-2007-01261.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Or, individuals defending the base (on the defended perimeter) and come under fire and engage the enemies with direct and lethal fire, and at risk of grave danger, also meet the intent of combat conditions for this award. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00969

    Original file (BC-1998-00969.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) major command (MAJCOM) denied this award on grounds that he was a flight surgeon and thus considered no more than a passenger on these flights, while other flight surgeons (assigned to different commands) were awarded this medal during the same period for participating on the same flight missions. HQ USAFE supplemented this regulation with additional criteria, to be applied to regularly assigned aircrew members, but not to flight surgeons. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800969

    Original file (9800969.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) major command (MAJCOM) denied this award on grounds that he was a flight surgeon and thus considered no more than a passenger on these flights, while other flight surgeons (assigned to different commands) were awarded this medal during the same period for participating on the same flight missions. HQ USAFE supplemented this regulation with additional criteria, to be applied to regularly assigned aircrew members, but not to flight surgeons. ...