RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02076
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following medals and citations be included on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty dated 26 October 1953: Korean Service Medal (KSM) with two bronze stars, the Air Medal (AM) with one oak leaf cluster and the combat “V”, the Distinguished Unit Citation, the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation and the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM).  

The following medals and citations be included on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty dated 1 February 1960: Air Force Longevity Service Award with one oak leaf cluster, and the Outstanding Unit Award with one oak leaf cluster.

Examiner’s Note: AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application and found that he is entitled to the Korean Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars, Distinguished Unit Citation, Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation, National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Longevity Service Award with one oak leaf cluster, and the AF Outstanding unit Award with “V” device and one oak leaf cluster.

The remaining request by the applicant for the Air Medal with combat “V” and one oak leaf cluster was reviewed by DPPPR and, after corresponding with the applicant; he withdrew his request for the one oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal but refused to withdraw his request for the combat “V” device.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The errors are errors of omission only.  

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a personal statement, and copies of three flight records, Internet pages displaying USAF organizations in Korea in the 1950’s and their earned citations, criteria for the awards, two certificates awarding the AF Outstanding Unit Award, combat squadron histories of the ---th Bombardment Squadron, Lineage and Honors of the Operational Weather Squadrons (including the --th Weather Squadron of which the applicant claims membership), and a picture of the applicant.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force from 12 January 1951 to 26 October 1953 and from 18 January 1955 to 1 February 1960.  His initial enlistment was as a mechanic/gunner and his second enlistment as a weather forecaster technician.  He had served for seven years, nine months and twenty-nine days of which were on Regular Active Duty.  His final discharge (Honorable, Expiration Term of Service) was effective 1 February 1960.  He was discharged as a Staff Sergeant (E-5) with a DOR of 1 September 1957.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DPPPR recommends denial.  They state that the “V” device denotes valor, not combat, and is worn on the Bronze Star Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Achievement Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, and the Air Force Organizational Excellence Award.  Consequently the “V” device is not authorized for the Air Medal.

DPPPR’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that during the Korean War, medals issued by the Air Force (AF) were actually Army medals.  In fact, he states that one could not tell the difference between AF and Army medals.  He argues that when current boards consider awarding medals to Korean War veterans that they consider the Army criteria for use and award of medals in effect at the time and not current criteria.  He contends the AF did not implement its own award criteria until sometime after the Korean War.  Not using Army criteria and amendments create a gross injustice for AF Korean war veterans.  An example he cites is that the Army authorizes use of the “V” device on the Air Medal and the Presidential Unit Citation (Distinguished Unit Citation) while the AF does not.  He has attached criteria for the Legion of Merit (LOM) and Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) that both authorize the use of the bronze “V” device to distinguish between a combat and non-combat award.  He contends SAF/MRBR’s (actually AFPC/DPPPR’s) contention that the “V” device stands for valor and combat is at odds with his previous statement regarding LOM and PUC.  He notes the LOM is an award for meritorious service and not valor, yet the “V” device is authorized for combat service.  He states the “V” device was withheld from Bronze Star Medal (non-deployed) awardees of the Gulf War not because of a lack of valor or meritorious service but because combat was not involved.  He surmises the “V” device might stand for valor and meritorious service.  He requests that the “V” device be added to his Distinguished Unit Citation (Presidential Unit Citation) in addition to any other SAF/MRBR (actually AFPC/DPPPR’s) recommended medals.

_________________________________________________________________

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; 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.  The “V” device denotes valor, not combat, and is not authorized for the Air Medal or the Distinguished Unit Citation.  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-2003-02076 in Executive Session on 28 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 2003, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 15 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Oct 03, w/atchs.