RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02845

XXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) awarded for the period 11 Sep 
67 through 30 Jun 74, be upgraded to the Legion of Merit (LOM).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1974, the original award approval correspondence was forwarded 
to Headquarters United States Air Force Europe (USAFE) for award 
of the LOM for superior service from 1967 to 1974.  However, USAFE 
downgraded the award to a MSM stating the LOM was reserved for 
officers in the grade of colonel (0-6) and above.

He understands enlisted personnel are now eligible for award of 
the LOM; therefore, the original award approval correspondence 
should be honored.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of memorandums, MSM citation, biography, letters 
of recommendation and newspaper articles.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Jun 54, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  On 
1 Jul 74, the applicant retired from the Air Force.  He served 
20 years and 21 days of total active service. 

According to a Congressional Inquiry (CI) response dated 22 Jul 
09, the applicant previously submitted a Congressional request for 
award of the LOM; however, AFPC/DPSIDRA was unable to verify award 
of the LOM as the applicant did not occupy a position of 
responsibility that met the criteria of the LOM.  



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


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  The applicant served in an 
additional duty of community relations liaison between Americans 
and the community of Fulda, Germany and their military.  However, 
the position does not meet the criteria of serving in a qualifying 
position in accordance with AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military 
Awards and Decorations Program.  To grant relief would be contrary 
to the criteria established by Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 
1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards:  DoD-Wide 
Performance and Valor Awards; Foreign Awards; Military Awards to 
Foreign Personnel and U.S. Public Health Service Officers; and 
Miscellaneous Information, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF), 
Chief of Staff (CSAF), and/or the War Department.

In accordance with AFI 36-2803, it does not appear the applicant 
was serving in a qualifying position and rank.  Colonels and above 
are of eligible rank and enlisted personnel must be a Chief Master 
Sergeant (CMSgt) and be in a qualifying position.  The applicant 
does not meet either part of the criteria.

The applicant was a Technical Sergeant (TSgt) during the time in 
question and his duty was that of Squadron Air Surveillance 
Operator with additional duties of Noncommissioned Officer in 
Charge (NCOIC), Disaster Preparedness Office and NCOIC, Squadron 
Information/Public Relations Office.  

The applicant provided a copy of his resume’ for the position of 
Regimental S-5, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, from Colonel O’----
--, in which he states “recommended him for award of the LOM for 
his G-A activities.”  However, this is the only reference located 
referencing the LOM.  In addition, no proposed citation or 
official recommendation was provided with his request, so even if 
he had the required qualifying position and rank, which he does 
not, the package would be considered incomplete.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP concurs with the recommendation of DPSID.  The applicant 
did not occupy the requisite grade or serve in a qualifying 
position, both of which are required to be eligible and considered 
for the LOM.  

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He provided a copy of AF Form 642, Recommendation for Decoration, 
for award of the LOM; therefore, the statement by DPSID that the 
LOM was never requested is untrue.  The paperwork submitted in his 
original request for reconsideration substantiates that he served 
in a very unique full-time position outside of his assigned Air 
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) during his tenure in Wasserkuppe 
Mountain, Germany.  Wasserkuppe was, and is the world’s most 
celebrated center for glider flying and known worldwide as Flyers 
Mountain.  In other words, Wasserkuppe is the German national 
aviation treasure equivalent to America’s Kitty Hawk, North 
Carolina.  

Fluent in German and married into a highly respected local German 
family, he became the obvious choice to initiate and conduct this 
program.  His top-secret clearance qualified an additional 
appointment as liaison to the US and German military/civilian 
authorities on military emergency planning.  He was tasked outside 
his AFSC to create an effective disaster control survival, denial, 
and evacuation plan to interface with panoply of military units in 
the forward area to create and maintain a comprehensive community 
relations program.

As the 3M European Manager for Military Engineer Markets and 
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE)/North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) Standardization and Interoperability, 
he continued to assist the USAFE commander, at Wasserkupe, with 
local issues until the German Air Force took control of the 
installation.

In further support of his request, the applicant provides a 
personal statement, a copy of AF Form 642, and various other 
documents associated with his request.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
F.


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.  While the 
additional documentation provided by the applicant is noted, he 
has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, 
successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force 
Offices of Primary Responsibility.  Therefore, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of the AF OPR and adopt the rationale 
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error or an 
injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief sought 
in this application. 

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2014-02845 in Executive Session on 7 Jul 15, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence p was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Oct 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, undated, w/atch.
      	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 15.
      	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 May 15, w/atchs.