Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01359
Original file (BC 2014 01359.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01359

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), First Oak Leaf Cluster 
(1OLC), for actions while under attack from an enemy ground force 
in Phnom Pehn, Cambodia, in 1975, be upgraded to the Bronze Star 
Medal (BSM).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The dangerous nature of the events deserves a higher award than 
the AFCM.  He believes the officers involved in the same recovery 
operation were awarded the BSM and he should be equally 
recognized.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant commenced his service in the Regular Air Force on 30 
Jun 70.

On 22 Mar 75, the applicant was part of a recovery team that 
repaired a C-130 aircraft, under hostile fire from an enemy ground 
force, enabling the aircraft to safely fly to friendly territory.  
For these actions, he was awarded the AFCM (1OLC).

The AFCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States, below the grade of Colonel and foreign military personnel, 
who, while serving in any capacity with the Department of the Air 
Force after 28 Mar 58, distinguished themselves by outstanding 
achievement or meritorious service.

On 29 Jul 76, the applicant was honorably discharged, and was 
credited with six years and one month of active service, which 
included 2 months, 6 months, and 19 days of foreign service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C and 
D.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  The BSM is awarded to any person who, 
after 6 Dec 41, while serving in any capacity with the Armed 
Forces of the United States, distinguishes himself or herself by 
heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving 
participating in aerial flight, under any of the following 
circumstances: while engaged in an action against an enemy of the 
United States, while engaged in military operations involving 
conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with 
friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an 
opposing armed force in which the United States is not a 
belligerent party.  The applicant has not provided sufficient 
documentation verifying an injustice exists.  The original award 
approval authority determined the AFCM was the appropriate award 
to recognize the applicant's outstanding achievement on 22 Mar 75.  
The applicant has not provided a recommendation for upgrade to the 
BSM from someone with firsthand knowledge and preferably in his 
direct chain of command at the time the act/achievement occurred, 
a proposed citation, or eyewitness statements from those who saw 
the applicant's act/achievement in order for his request to be 
reasonably considered.  To grant relief would be contrary to the 
criteria established by DoDM 1348.33, Secretary of the Air Force, 
Chief of Staff, and/or the War Department.

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

SAF/MRBP recommends denial of upgrading the requested AFCM to a 
BSM, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  
The applicant did not provide a recommendation for upgrade from 
his chain of command, or someone with first-hand knowledge or an 
eye-witness that would allow the request to be reasonably 
considered.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes the opinion of the OPR and argues his 
original submission, the citation of the award, is sufficient 
documentation to justify upgrading his AFCM to the BSM.  To 
support the advisory recommendation of a request from someone with 
firsthand knowledge of the act, he provides the name of his 
officer in charge, as listed on the special order, dated 
31 Oct 75, as evidence of someone with firsthand knowledge of the 
event; unfortunately, this person is now deceased.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the 
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.  
Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error 
or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States 
Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Applicant 
has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we 
are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or 
injustice which require resolution on the merits.  Thus, we cannot 
conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the 
applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision 
of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2014-01359 in Executive Session on 25 Feb 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01359 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 27 May 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 4 Sep 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Nov 14.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05077

    Original file (BC 2013 05077.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant only provided a copy of the approved citation for his DMSM in support of his request. The applicant was recommended for and awarded the DMSM as the appropriate award for recognition of his...

  • 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02624

    Original file (BC 2014 02624.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    While it is noted the applicant’s AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations, dated , does not mention the BSM, and the applicant does not have a recommendation for upgrade from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement, preferably from someone within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, or eyewitness statements, AFPC/DPSIDR believed based on the MSM recommendation package the applicant's actions were at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03187

    Original file (BC 2014 03187.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His father’s service record be corrected to reflect the award of the following Air Force Medals: a. The service member’s WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge, and DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects the following Decorations, Citations and Badges: - Basic Munition Badge - American Service Medal - Good Conduct Medal - Asiatic Pacific Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars -...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02456

    Original file (BC 2014 02456.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The DMSM will not be awarded for any period of service for which a Military Department medal is awarded. The applicant was recommended for a DMSM, not a BSM.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01060

    Original file (BC 2014 01060.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Dec 66, the former service member was transferred from the NY ANG to the Air Force Reserve. There is no official documentation in the decedent's record, nor did the next of kin provide any with this request, to verify the decedent was recommended for or awarded the DFC or the BSM, w/1BOLC. The DFC may be awarded to any persons who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05790

    Original file (BC 2013 05790.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial with respect to the applicant’s request for the SS or BSM, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation is at Exhibit D. SAF/PC recommends denial to award the SS or BSM,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03248

    Original file (BC-2006-03248.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPPWB advises that Air Force promotion policy dictates the closeout date of a decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) and the signature date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for a cycle in question. Should the decoration be upgraded and the applicant promoted to the grade of MSgt with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 89, DPPPWB recommends the Board adjust the applicant’s retirement date to 31 Aug...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC 2002 01403

    Original file (BC 2002 01403.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-01403 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His award of the Silver Star (SS) be upgraded to the Medal of Honor (MoH) for his actions on 26 Nov 43. According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 11 Jan 44, he was wounded in action. A review of the applicant’s records revealed that he should have been awarded the Prisoner of War Medal (PWM),...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00139

    Original file (BC 2014 00139.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00139 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Silver Star (SS) Medal. The applicant claims that the Lieutenant General, Commander of the Fifth Air Force, awarded him the SS Medal in Apr-May 53. We note the documentation he provided reflects for the time period in question he enlisted in the Navy and therefore...