RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02763
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) instead of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for the BSM but was awarded the AFCM instead.  Applicant believes that his BSM recommendation should have been forwarded to HQ Military Advisory Command, Vietnam (MACV) because of his assignment to a Joint Service Organization (JSO).  JSO award recommendations were supposed to be considered by MACV.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a copy of the recommendation package for the BSM and the citation to accompany the award of the AFCM.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 August 1961 and was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt/E-7).  The applicant was honorably discharged on          28 February 1983, and retired effective 1 March 1983, after serving 21 years, 6 months and 15 days of active duty.  He was credited with 2 years, 2 months and 24 days of Foreign and/or Sea Service.

Applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that he was awarded the AF Meritorious Service Medal, the AF Commendation Medal, the AF NCO Professional Military Education Ribbon, the AF Longevity Service Ribbon, with 4 oak leaf clusters, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, with 3 oak leaf clusters, the Republic of Vietnam Service Medal, the Army Meritorious Unit Service Medal, the AF Outstanding Unit Award, and the AF Good Conduct Medal, with 1 silver oak leaf cluster.  (AFPC/DPPPRA determined that the Vietnam Service Medal, with 3 oak leaf clusters, should have been the Vietnam Service Medal, with 3 bronze service stars, and the Republic of Vietnam Service Medal should have been the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.  Applicant’s DD Form 214 will be administratively corrected to reflect these changes).  

As a staff sergeant (E-5), applicant was assigned, on           24 September 1968, to Det 7AT 1137th USAF Support Activity Sq with duty in Defense Communications Agency-Southeast Asia Mainland (DCA-SAM) in Saigon, Republic of Vietnam.  On 16 July 1969, applicant was recommended for award of the BSM for meritorious service for the period 24 September 1968 to          1 September 1969.  On 31 July 1969, applicant was awarded the AFCM instead of the BSM.  

Examiner’s Note: There is no documentation included with applicant’s package, or in the record, to indicate why the original recommendation was downgraded from BSM to AFCM.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial stating that applicant provided no documentation that showed DCA-SAM was under the administrative control of MACV; that applicant did not provide documentation showing that either he or his recommending official requested reconsideration for upgrade of the AFCM within the one-year time limit, and finally, that since the recommending official signed the recommendation and addressed it to 7th Air Force, it must be presumed he was aware of the proper administrative channel through which the package should be submitted.  

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disputes the Air Force evaluation and requests reconsideration due to the following:

	   a. Applicant reiterates his contention that he was attached to a JSO by showing that his APR at the time, was signed by a Marine Corps sergeant, initially indorsed by a Naval chief petty officer, indorsed by an Army major and finally approved by an Air Force colonel.

	   b. He was assigned to the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), which as a DoD agency, could not have been under the control of a numbered Air Force.  Therefore, his BSM recommendation package should have been sent to MACV vice 7th AF.

	   c. He disputes the Air Force evaluation comment that infers that the BSM was reserved for TSgt’s and above by unwritten rule.  He argues that an unwritten rule favoring certain ranks is pure discrimination.  He further states that the distribution of awards is governed by applicable rules and regulations.
2
	   d. Applicant addressed the Air Force’s contention that the recommending official(s) at the time must be presumed to have known the proper channels for awards and decorations by pointing 
out that applicant’s chain of command at the time of the award submission was a new one as the previous people in his immediate chain of command had either rotated back to the states, been killed in action or been replaced.  Therefore, the Air Force cannot assume that the applicant’s chain of command knew who to send the recommendation package to.

Finally, the applicant contends that he deserves the BSM for his combat service in Vietnam, but should he not be granted relief that he be considered, at a minimum, for the Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM) as opposed to the AFCM.  (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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and noted, also, the untimeliness of the application; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-02763 in Executive Session on 4 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

3
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 24 Aug 02, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dtd 17 Oct 02, w/atch’s.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 8 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dtd 30 Nov 02.