Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01584
Original file (BC-2013-01584.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01584
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Medal (AM).

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1. He was assigned to Detachment 1, 6994th Security Squadron, Nha 
Trang Air Base, Republic of Vietnam, in January 1969.  He flew 
missions to observe how the equipment functioned.  In October 
1969, he participated in an air assault to recover remains, 
documents, equipment, and to certify destruction of classified 
items at the crash site.  After departing Phu Cat, he hand 
carried classified documents to Pleiku Air Base and Cam Ranh 
Bay.  Other than the air assault missions and the courier 
flights, all missions should have been recorded by the 361st 
TEWS.  He recalls flying 72 missions as a crew member.  
Additionally, he flew many other flights as a passenger on C-7, 
C-124, and C-130 aircraft.  He turned in his flight log; 
however, it apparently was lost.  

2. To qualify for the AM, a member must have accrued 100 points.  
The missions he flew on were classified as combat missions that 
earned five points per mission for 20 missions.  After March 
1969, the missions were classified as combat support mission 
that earned 2.86 points per mission for 35 missions to equal 100 
points.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
AF Form 77, Company Grade Officer Effectiveness Report, a copy 
of his AF Form 1042, Medical Recommendation for Flying Duty, a 
copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, 
a letter of support, and a person statement.

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

________________________________________________________________
_




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force on 31 Mar 78 
after serving 20 years, 6 months, and 25 days on active duty.

The AM criteria:  This decoration, one of several Air Force 
awards established by Congress on 6 Jul 60, takes the place of 
the Soldier's Medal for Air Force personnel. It is awarded to 
any member of the armed forces of the United States or of a 
friendly nation who, while serving in any capacity with the 
United States Air Force after the date of the award's 
authorization, shall have distinguished himself or herself by a 
heroic act, usually at the voluntary risk of his or her life but 
not involving actual combat. The saving of a life or the success 
of the voluntary heroic act is not essential. Do not award for 
normal performance of duties.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial stating they were unable to locate 
any official documentation that verifies he was recommended for 
or awarded any AMs.  The applicant did not provide a citation, 
recommendation or narrative for the AMs or any documentation to 
substantiate an error or injustice exists.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial.  The Chief of Staff Memorandum, 
dated 5 Dec 66, requires “ten combat support missions over North 
Vietnam for award of the Air Medal, 20 combat support missions 
for classified areas less North Vietnam and 35 combat support 
missions for South Vietnam and other South East Asia areas 
outside the Defined Area.”  In the applicant’s personnel 
records, an Aeronautical Order, dated 20 Apr 69, supports that 
the applicant was on flying status from 20 Apr 69 to 30 Jun 69; 
however, he is not able to offer any supporting documents to 
reflect the number of aerial missions or sorties he participated 
in for verification.  If the applicant is able to locate the 
missing documentation, a recommendation by a member of Congress 
is needed in order to process the request.

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 Oct and 15 Oct 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 an error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the available evidence and applicant’s 
complete submission, we find no evidence the applicant’s records 
should be corrected to show he was awarded the AM.  As such, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and SAF/MRBP and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that absent supporting 
documentation to reflect the number of aerial missions or 
sorties he participated in, we are unable at this time to 
favorably consider his request.  However, he may apply for 
reconsideration should he obtain the documentation as cited by 
SAF/MRBP.  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-2013-01584 in Executive Session on 3 Dec 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2013-01584 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, APFC/DPSID, dated 21 Jun 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 9 Oct 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 13.
    Exhibit F.  Email, AFBCMR, dated 15 Oct 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-2010-01082

    Original file (BC-2010-01082.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his DD Form 214, his retirement order, his certification of combat flying time and missions and his non-rated individual flight records. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit B. Although we find his actions which led to his award of the Air Medal with one oak leaf cluster commendable, we see no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this case.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00575

    Original file (BC-2012-00575.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Therefore, in view of the fact the applicant has not provided any new and/or relevant evidence in support of his request for the PH Medal, we find that his request does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03329

    Original file (BC-2012-03329.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03329 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be entitled to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for missions he flew during World War II (WWII). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The 9-man flight crew he was assigned to flew 35 combat...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02044

    Original file (BC-2010-02044.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It should be noted that this Board does not have the authority to award the MOH. Regarding the applicant’s request that his uncle be awarded the Air Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters (AM w/2OLCs), based on the NPRC records it appears his uncle was awarded the AM w/1OLC; however, as previously stated by DPSIDRA, the applicant has not provided any official documentation to substantiate the award of the AM w/1OLC was actually made in order for his uncle to be eligible for possible entitlement...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05097

    Original file (BC 2012 05097.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his argument that he would have been selected for promotion to master sergeant if credited with the Air Medal. As for the applicant’s request that he be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), in view of the fact that we have determined there is no basis to recommend granting the AM, we find...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04209

    Original file (BC-2012-04209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel cites a previous case where the AFBCMR awarded the DFC to an applicant for completion of a minimum of 10 lead or deputy lead combat missions and an OLC to the DFC for every 10 successive lead missions completed (AFBCMR BC-2005-02255). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits B and C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05531

    Original file (BC 2012 05531.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, noting that the applicant has not exhausted all avenues of administrative relief. The complete SAF/PC evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a rebuttal response, a friend of the applicant submitted additional documents including, copies of 339th Bomb Squadron's Record...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03719

    Original file (BC 2013 03719.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per AFM 900-3, Decorations, Service Awards, Unit Awards, Special Badges, Favorable Communications, Certificates, and Special Devices (20 Jan 72), Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-1(3), “Only one decoration may be awarded for the same act, achievement or period of service.” Further, per AFM 900-3, and AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, criteria for award of the BSM is for “Heroic or meritorious achievement or service (not involving aerial flight).” The complete MRBP evaluation is at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02307

    Original file (BC 2013 02307.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the AM, PUC, Air Force Overseas Ribbon and the AFEM. There is no documentation to support the applicant’s unit of assignment, with inclusive dates, was awarded the PUC. Since the applicant served before this time period, he is not eligible for award of the Air Force Overseas Ribbon.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00454

    Original file (BC 2014 00454.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant contends his request through his Congressman in 2001 resulted in being awarded the DFC w/1 BOLC; however, a letter from the NPRC to his Congressman, on behalf of the applicant, states they verified entitlement to the requested medals and awards on the DA Form 1577, Authorization for Issuance of Awards, which includes a basic award of the DFC but no annotation of a DFC w/1 BOLC. The applicant was awarded the Air Medal (AM) w/ 9 OLCs by an Eighth Air Force Special Order (G-353)...