RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00522
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Award of the Air Medal, with one oak leaf cluster (AM, w/1OLC).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 3 June 1967, he and three other individuals were recommended and approved for award of the AM, w/1OLC.  On 7 May 1972, one of the four individuals (retired CMSgt ---) received the AM, w/1OLC.  However, he and the other two members have never received the medal.  He believes his name was omitted due to a clerical error.

In support of his request, applicant submits statements from one of the four individuals who was awarded the AM, with a copy of the special order awarding the AM; a copy of the Air Medal recommendation, dated 3 June 1967; and, additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 28 January 1954.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 August 1973.

The applicant served in Vietnam from 10 December 1966 to 10 December 1967.  He was assigned to the Numbered Troop Carrier Squadron (TCS) as a reciprocating engine mechanic.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that, on 3 June 1967, the squadron’s chief of maintenance submitted a request to the squadron awards officer for assistance in awarding the Air Medal to four of his aircraft maintenance personnel.

Applicant’s military personnel records reveal that, on 3 December 1970, the Directorate of Awards and Decorations, Numbered Air Force, disapproved the proposed decoration recommendation for all four members.

Applicant’s submission contains a copy of Special Order G-1056, dated 7 May 1972, reflecting only one of the four members being awarded the Air Medal and first oak leaf cluster for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight during the period of 1 December 1966 to 31 May 1967.

The applicant’s DD Form 214, dated 27 January 1970, reflects the following decorations:  Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVCM); Vietnam Service Medal, with one Bronze Service Star (BSS); the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA); and, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM), with one oak leaf cluster.

On 31 January 1974, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired, effective 1 February 1974, and assigned to the retired Reserve.  He had completed a total of 20 years and 3 days of active service for retirement and was serving in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) at the time of retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and that he be directed to exercise the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to resolve this matter.  DPPPR states that there is no documentation in the applicant’s records, or provided by the applicant, that allows their office to conclusively determine what the final outcome of the AM recommendation was.  However, filed in applicant’s military personnel records was a letter, dated 3 December 1970, disapproving the AMs on all four individuals.  There is no evidence available that would explain how or why only one individual ultimately was awarded the AM.

DPPPR indicates that, under Section 526 of the NDAA, the applicant and the other two individual may again be recommended for the AM. The original recommending official may resubmits the original recommendation, through a congressional member, to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for consideration.

The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 7 May 2004 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence provided by this applicant, we do not find the evidence sufficient to warrant the approval of the requested relief.  In this respect, we note that the Award Board disapproved the Air Medal recommendation on 3 December 1970.  Other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence of a clerical error omitting the applicant’s name for award of the cited medal.  Even though one of the four individuals initially recommended for the award in 1967 did, for reason(s) unexplained here, receive an Air Medal approximately five years later, this alone does not, in our opinion, substantiate that approval for the other members is warranted.  We do not doubt the outstanding contributions the applicant made during the course of his career.  However, in the absence of documentary evidence substantiating that the requested award recommendation was improperly disapproved, we do not find the evidence provided establishes to our satisfaction that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Although we are unpersuaded by the evidence submitted, we note that the applicant has another avenue, under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), in which to resolve his claim for award of the Air Medal and we encourage him to exercise the provisions of the NDAA in resolving this matter.  In view of the above, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as our findings in the case.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 29 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00522.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 4 May 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.

                                   Panel Chair