RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00948
		INDEX CODE 107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Achievement Medal, awarded for the period 24 Nov 88 to 22 Jul 91, be upgraded to the Airman’s Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application and recommended denial.  A permanent change of station (PCS) decoration can not be upgraded to a decoration of a higher degree based on one incident mentioned in the PCS decoration.  The recommending official determines the level of decoration, and the applicant has not provided any documentation from the official who recommended him for the Air Force Achievement (AFAM), explaining why the applicant was not recommended for an Airman’s Medal for the incident mentioned in the AFAM.

The applicant has already been recognized for the incident, about which no details have been provided or substantiated other than the AFAM citation, and can not be awarded another decoration for the same act.  Mount Pinatubo erupted on 12 June 1991; the applicant departed the Philippines on or about 22 July 1991, arriving at his next duty station (Williams AFB, AZ) on         24 October 1991.  He PCS’d again, arriving at Vandenberg AFB, CA, where he is still assigned.  The applicant has not provided any documentation showing that he has made any attempt to locate his recommending official or anyone else in his chain of command with firsthand knowledge of the incident, or offered any explanation for his not being recommended for the Airman’s Medal for the referenced incident.  Applicant has not provided any documentation showing he was, or is, recommended for the Airman’s Medal for the incident, which he claims is worthy of the Airman’s Medal, mentioned in his basic AFAM citation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  1 Jun 01, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice concerning the applicant’s request that his AFAM be upgraded to an Airman’s Medal.  After a thorough review of the available evidence, we are not persuaded that corrective action is warranted.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 15 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 15 May 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 01.

	
	Panel Chair