RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03187

			COUNSEL:  NONE
		
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His father’s service record be corrected to reflect the 
award of the following Air Force Medals:

	a.  Bronze Star (BSM).

	b.  Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM).

	c.  Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM).
	
      	d.  Army of Occupation Medal (AOM).

2.  His father’s service record be corrected to reflect the 
authorization to wear the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 
Occupational Badge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  His father never received the appropriate recognition at the 
conclusion of World War II.  Based on the eligibility criteria, 
he should have been awarded the BSM for his service with the 
XXXst Material Squadron, the AFCM for his service and duty during 
the “Missions of Mercy”, and the AOM for his service in the 
Mariana Islands.  

2.  The Board should adjust the windows of eligibility for the 
HSM and the EOD occupational badge so that his father’s service 
dates meet their eligibility criteria.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The deceased former member initially entered the Army Air Corps 
on 1 Jan 43.

On 24 Feb 46, the deceased former member was furnished an 
Honorable discharge, and was credited with three years, two 
months, and two days of active service.   

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
	- World War II Victory Medal

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the 
EOD badge indicating there is no evidence of an error or an 
injustice.  They also point out the request was not submitted in 
a timely manner. 

The deceased former member separated in 1946 as member of the 
Army Air Corps.  At the time of the applicant’s separation, the 
military had not yet created an EOD badge.  An EOD patch was 
created in 1956 and was available to wear in 1957; however, 
there was no “Grandfather” clause granting the EOD patch to 
prior members. 

After consultation with the EOC Career Field Functional Manager, 
they recommend disapproval of the request to have the EOD 
occupational badge added to the applicant’s record.

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  They also point out the request was 
not submitted in a timely manner. 

The BSM is awarded to any person who, while serving in any 
capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguishes 
themselves by heroic or meritorious achievement or service 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 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 24 Mar 58, distinguish themselves by 
outstanding achievement or meritorious service.

The HSM may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces who, 
subsequent to 1 Apr 75, distinguished themselves as individuals 
or as member of the United States Military units or ships by 
meritorious, direct participation in a military act or operation 
of a humanitarian nature.  The recipient must have been 
physically present at the designated location, having directly 
contributed to and influenced the action.  Designated location 
is the immediate site(s) of the humanitarian operations as 
defined by the Presidential authorization of Federal assistance 
in the United States or the Department of the State request for 
assistance for overseas areas.  

The AOM is awarded for 30 consecutive days of service at a 
normal place of duty while assigned to or serving with the 
United States Occupation Forces during the timeframe after World 
War II.  Military service in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater between 
3 Sep 45 and 2 Mar 46, shall only be considered if the service 
member received the applicable theater campaign medal for 
military service in the theater before the inclusive periods 
mentioned above.  

It appears the service member’s official military personnel 
records were heavily damaged in the fire at the National 
Personnel Records Center in 1973, limiting the documentation 
available for review.  

Of the records that were available to review, they were not able 
to locate any official documentation, nor was any provided by 
the next of kin, to verify the service member met the 
eligibility criteria for the award of the BSM, AFCM, HSM, or  
AOM.  

In order to reasonably consider the next of kin’s request to 
award the BSM, he needs to submit a recommendation from someone 
with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement, a proposed 
citation, and eyewitness statement.  The deceased former 
member’s service dates are prior to the authorization dates for 
the award of the AFCM and the HSM; therefore, rendering him 
ineligible.  Finally, with regards to the AOM, there is no 
official documentation to verify the deceased former member 
served 30 consecutive days at a normal place of duty while 
assigned to or serving with the United States Occupation Forces.    

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes the opinions of both Air Force Advisories 
and bases his disagreements on the fact that so many World-War 
II veterans never received the appropriate recognition for their 
sacrifice and service to our country.  

The first Air Force Advisory stated that his father does not 
meet the eligibly criteria to wear the EOD occupational badge; 
however, his father participated in ordnance disposal operations 
during and after the war; therefore, he meets the spirit and 
intent to authorize the wear this badge.  

The second Air Force Advisory stated that they could not locate 
any copies of special orders or citations regarding the award of 
the BSM or AFCM.  As the applicant stated in his original 
package the speed of his father’s redeployment at the end of the 
war impacted many service members from being appropriately 
recognized.  The applicant also highlights the many 
accomplishments of the men assigned to the 501st Material 
Squadron justify them for the award of these two medals.  The 
advisory also recommended the denial of the AOM based on where 
his father was assigned versus the area of eligibility; however, 
he contends that they failed to take into account that Japanese 
Forces occupied almost 80% of the Far East and that many of the 
territories were in Japanese hands until they were reoccupied.   
They also stated the HSM is not authorized for any acts prior to 
1975.  However, he argues again that many men and women served 
in humanitarian type operations like “Mission of Mercy” that 
warrant its award and limiting its award based on a specific 
date is wrong.

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-2014-03187 in Executive Session on 25 Jun 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-03187 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 18 Dec 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Feb 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 May 15.