RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02892
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Air Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes he should receive the Air Medal for his service during the Berlin Airlift and completion of 126 trips to Berlin.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 26 December 1940, in the grade of private for a period of three years and was honorably discharged on 4 October 1945, in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt), under the provisions of AR 615-365 (Convenience of the Government RR 1-1, Demobilization).  He served four years, nine months, and nine days of total active service.

He reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 August 1947 in the grade of TSgt for a period of three years.  He continued to reenlist contracting his last enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 October 1961, in the grade of chief master sergeant for a period of three years.

His Reports of Separation reflect award of the Asiatic Pacific Theater Ribbon, Occupation Medal (Germany) with Airlift Clasp, Good Conduct Medal Clasp (Bronze with 5 Loops), Korean Service Medal with three Bronze Service Stars, National Defense Service Medal, United Nations Service Medal, and the Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA) with 4 Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.

On 31 October 1962, the applicant retired in the grade of chief master sergeant.  He served 20 years and 4 days of total active service.

On 7 October 2003, AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant there is no indication in his records that he was recommended for award of the Air Medal for participation in flights for the Berlin Airlift.  His records did indicate he submitted an inquiry to the Director of Military Personnel on 25 February 1953.  He also submitted a copy of the final letter of May 1953, indicating there were no records anywhere of him having been recommended for award of the Air Medal.  Regardless of the number of flights he may have accomplished, a recommendation package had to be written and signed by a recommending official, endorsed by the next higher official in the chain of command, and submitted to the final approval authority.  They further indicated before his appeal could be considered, they need a completed recommendation package, including a proposed citation that had been signed by his [then] supervisor, commander or person with firsthand knowledge of his service or accomplishments, and endorsed by the next higher official in the [then] chain of command.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial.  They stated there is no indication in the applicant’s records of any flights performed in direct support of the Berlin Airlift.  However, he was assigned to a unit that received credit for participating in the Airlift, and the Army of Occupation Medal with Berlin Airlift Device is reflected on the appropriate DD Form 214.  The applicant did not provide any reason for not having followed through with the instructions he received in 1953, over fifty years ago.  Also, the applicant has not provided any documentation showing he actually participated in any of the Berlin Airlift flights.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to substantiate his claim or any justification for waiting until there would be no one who could confirm his statements or provide a signed and endorsed recommendation for the Air Medal.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 December 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 an error or an injustice warranting award of the Air Medal.  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.  According to the applicant’s military personnel records there is no indication that he was recommended for, or awarded the Air Medal or that he flew any combat or combat support missions in direct support of the Berlin Airlift.  However, we note that he was assigned to a unit that received credit for participation in the Airlift and the Army of Occupation Medal with Berlin Airlift Device, which is reflected on his DD Form 214.  On 7 October 2003, AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant that before they could consider his request, he needed to provide a completed recommendation package, including a proposed citation that had been signed by his [then] supervisor, commander or person with firsthand knowledge of his service or accomplishments, and endorsed by the next higher official in the [then] chain of command.  He was further advised to withdraw his application until he could provide that support, but he did not respond.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action on his request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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 24 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02892 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 December 2003,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 December 2003.