RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02297

  					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) awarded 1 Apr 05 be upgraded 
to the Bronze Star Medal (BSM).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1133 establishes criteria for BSM 
eligibility stating it is authorized when a member is receiving 
special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger.  
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1348.33-M states the 
BSM is authorized while a member is engaged in military 
operations involving conflict with an opposing force.  

The MSM was created as the non-combat counterpart to the BSM.  
DoDI 1348.33-M states the MSM is for non-combat meritorious 
achievement.  He should have been awarded the BSM for 
accomplishments during his deployment in support of OPERATION 
IRAQI FREEDOM because the MSM is only awarded for non-combat 
support.  He provides copies of the MSM and BSM fact sheets, the 
related DoDI pages, and the MSM citation stating “delivered 
world-class combat support to 1,900 troops….”

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 Jun 84, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 1 Apr 05, the commander of United States Central Command Air 
Forces (USCENTAF) signed the citation to accompany the award of 
the MSM with second Oak Leaf Cluster (w/2OLC), awarded to the 
applicant for distinguishing himself by outstanding achievement 
as the Personnel Support for Contingency Operations Team 
Superintendent, Kirkuk Regional Air Base, Iraq.

On 14 Apr 05, he was awarded the MSM, by Special Order G-1988, 
for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement during the 
period 31 Aug 04 through 10 Jan 05.

On 31 Jan 09, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
retired, effective 1 Feb 09.  He was credited with 24 years, 7 
months and 16 days of active service including 3 years, 6 months 
and 28 days of foreign-service.       


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends the Board determine whether the 
applicant’s act/achievement warrants upgrade to the BSM.  While 
his MSM w/2OLC states he endured rocket attacks while deployed, 
the majority of the citation is for his non-combat 
administrative accomplishments regarding updating of records and 
streamlining various systems issues.  

The BSM is governed by Executive Order 11046, which authorizes 
the Secretary of a Military Department to award the BSM to any 
person, who while serving in any capacity with the United States 
Armed Forces, distinguishes himself or herself by heroic or 
meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation 
in aerial flight; 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 opposing armed force in which the United States 
is not a belligerent party.  

While the BSM is awarded for service to members who were 
physically present within a designated combat zone, the MSM is 
also authorized for service within a designated combat zone but 
for service that does not rise to the level of the BSM.  

Per USCENTAF Decoration Guidebook dated 27 Dec 04, A2.9, the MSM 
is awarded for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or 
service to the United States.  Do not award for aerial 
achievement.  Individuals stationed within the area of 
responsibility, but who do not meet the qualifications for the 
BSM, may be awarded the MSM.   

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAFPC does not recommend upgrade to the BSM.  SAFPC agrees with 
the DPSID advisory in that either the MSM or the BSM could be 
awarded.  While there was mention of “enduring rocket attacks” 
while deployed, the overwhelming majority of the narrative, and 
all of the actions attributed to the member, are of an 
administrative nature and do not meet the criteria for a BSM.  

The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit D.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant submitted a response highlighting three areas of 
concern with the advisories he received.  First, award of the 
MSM is inappropriate given he qualifies for the BSM.  Mr. 
XXXXX letter states the executive order and quotes the 
USCENTAF Decoration Guidebook dated 27 Dec 04 as “authority.”  
In paragraph C of his background information he quotes the guide 
as saying: “Individuals stationed within the area of 
responsibility, but who do not meet the qualifications for the 
BSM, may be awarded the MSM.”  If eligible for the BSM, then 
award of the MSM is inappropriate.  Neither advisory states he 
is ineligible for the BSM.  

Second, Title 10 Section 1133 (attachment 7 of his original 
package), changed the requirements for award of the BSM and is 
retroactive to 30 Oct 00.  Neither advisory addressed the change 
in eligibility requirements for the BSM.  However, they confirm 
that the law has not yet been considered or applied if they are 
quoting a 27 Dec 04 USCENTAF decoration guide.  There is no way 
the guidebook can be correct if the law changed in 2011 with an 
effective date of 2000—the guidebook they are following is dated 
2004.  

Third, Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 1348.33v3 change 2 
published 13 Mar 15 finally brings together all requirements and 
the law for eligibility of the BSM into three primary elements:

3.1. Not involved in aerial flight; he met this requirement;

3.2. Engaged in actions or operations involving conflict with an 
opposing force; he met this requirement;

3.3. At the time of the events be eligible for hostile fire or 
imminent danger pay; he met this requirement.  

When the eligibility requirements for the law and the USCENTAF 
guidebook are compared, the facts quoted in the DPSID advisory 
make him eligible for the BSM.  Since he is eligible for the 
BSM, the MSM is inappropriate.

Finally, he feels compelled to provide the official Air Force 
position on the basic scope of duties for Personnel Support for 
Contingency Operations (PERSCO) from AFI 36-3802, chapter 5.  
PERSCO is everything the personnel community does to support the 
warfighter.  The PERSCO teams are responsible for Total Force 
accountability and reporting, casualty reporting and providing 
personnel program advice.  The DPSID and SAFPC advisories 
provide their opinion of the duties he performed as 
“administrative in nature” and “support to those actually 
providing combat support.”  Nowhere in the DoDM is there a 
requirement for the BSM to be based solely upon combat related 
duties, just that it be combat related to or providing support 
thereto.  

The complete APPLICANT review is at Exhibit E.


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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including 
attachments and his rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; 
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error of injustice.  While we note the 
applicant’s argument in response to the advisory opinion 
rendered in this case that the MSM was not a legitimate form of 
recognition for his contributions in the area of responsibility, 
we are not convinced that this is the case.  In this respect, we 
note that the law quoted by the applicant indicates “The 
decoration known as the “Bronze Star” may only be awarded to a  
member of a military force who (1) at the time of the events for 
which the decoration is to be awarded, was serving in a 
geographic area in which special pay is authorized under section 
310 or paragraph (1) or (3) of section 351(a) of title 37; or 
(2) receives special pay under section 310 or paragraph (1) or 
(3) of section 351(a) of title 37 as a result of those events;” 
however, our review of this statute and the excerpts of the 
policy provided do not indicate to us that the MSM was not a 
legitimate option for the commander to choose when determining 
the appropriate decoration for the applicant’s actions.  
Additionally, DoDM 1348.33 v3, change 2, as referenced by the 
applicant, also states in chapter six, paragraph c(1)(b) that 
“The MSM may be awarded for outstanding achievement or service 
while serving in a designated combat zone or areas authorized 
for hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, or hazardous duty 
pay.”  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  


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 appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application.


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02297 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Oct 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, SAFPC, dated undated.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 15.