RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00124, Cse 2
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
	APPLICANT 	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Medal (AM) (basic) for 28 Feb 91 be upgraded to a Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During this mission he took extreme risks to locate a downed Marine pilot who was later found dead.  During the timeframe that the award package was written squadron missions were compared to other squadron missions as opposed to an objective standard.  

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The 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.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR states the applicant was requested on 22 Feb 02 to provide documentation showing he was recommended for the DFC for the 28 Feb 91 mission.  In response to the request the applicant states he was not recommended for the DFC, but believes he should have been.  He further stated he tried to correct this in the last part of the nineties through military channels, but he has not provided any documentation to support this request.  An individual can not recommend themselves for a decoration or for an upgrade of a decoration previously awarded.  A request for an upgrade of a decoration must be made by the original recommending official to the original approval authority within one year of the final decision.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to show that the original recommending official 
submitted a recommendation for DFC or his accomplishments met the criteria for the DFC at that time.  Without documentation to show he was recommended for the DFC, a request for an upgrade of the AM to the DFC or the applicant met the criteria for a DFC, they can not verify his eligibility for the upgrade.  Based on the information provided, DPPPR recommends denying the applicant's request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and reiterated statements made on his application.  Also, the applicant submitted previously received documentation to support his request for upgrade of his AM to a DFC (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  We believe it should be pointed out that the applicant's decorated service and sacrifice for his country has not gone unnoticed.  The applicant was awarded the AM for his actions on 28 Feb 91; however, no evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that the applicant was recommended for a DFC.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 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 Docket Number 02-00124 in Executive Session on July 2, 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 May 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 31 May 02.