RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01085
				INDEX CODE:  107.00
				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 OCTOBER 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be upgraded to an Airman’s Medal (AM).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The original AM submission lacked key data that would have shown that his actions were not in the normal performance of his duties.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a memorandum signed by his commander with 10 attachments.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

A decoration package was submitted to award the applicant the AM for his heroic action on 8 December 1994.  The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) advised that although the applicant’s recommendation for the AM was commendable, it did not meet the requirements for the AM.

The applicant was awarded the AFCM for his heroic actions during his deployment as a member of the Joint Task Force SAFE HAVEN on 8 December 1994.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends the requested relief be denied.  MRBP states the letter from the applicant’s commander states the applicant’s actions on 8 December 1994 were “…anything but normal.”  Based on additional research it appears there was a significant American military presence on scene and that this was not a case of the applicant’s unit facing and quelling a 1,000-person mob by themselves.  Additionally, review of the witness statement contained in the original submission reveals that the applicant’s men were indeed trained and equipped to combat the rioting mob.  The applicant’s actions on 8 December 1994 were impressive, but not above and beyond that expected of a Security Forces officer and his troops to rise to the level of the AM.

The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated the SAFPC recommendation does not provide an accurate picture and focuses on inessential and superfluous events at the periphery of his actions.

At no point has the case been made, that the security forces under his command quelled the mob alone.  It is well documented that there was a American military presence that grew as the riots became more violent; however, the key point that has been lost in this process, despite being highlighted in many areas, is that his forces were first on-scene to prevent the initial blocking force of soldiers from being run over by rioters in three commandeered military vehicles.

The request for the medal upgrade is not based on the performance of his troops or on the adequacy of their riot training; his request is based on his actions at the critical juncture when the Americans faced the risk of being run over before reinforcement arrived.

These actions were what he accomplished alone and they have been completely denigrated by SAFPC because he was never trained for what he encountered on that date.  SAFPC has diminished his personal sacrifices and the numerous injuries he incurred.

SAFPC stated his actions were not “above and beyond that expected of a Security Forces officer” yet every person in his chain of command has praised his actions above and beyond all others.  Their endorsement earned him the highest SF award for heroism.  
The ACC Commander stated, “Your selfless act of courage has set the highest standard of dedication to duty.”

He requests the AFBCMR give due consideration to his actions and consider whether an AFCM is adequate recognition for his actions which stood “above and beyond” all other heroic actions performed by the 25,000 plus SF personnel that year.

His complete response is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.  

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice.  The Board carefully reviewed the documentation provided in support of the applicant’s appeal; however, the Board majority agrees with the opinion of the Air Force that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In this respect, the criteria for award of the AM requires that members "...distinguish themselves by heroism involving voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those of actual conflict with an enemy."  After reviewing a detailed account of the events as they transpired, it is the Board majority's opinion that although the applicant's actions were courageous and certainly deserving of the recognition he has received, there is no persuasive evidence present that his actions met the criteria for award of an AM.  The Board majority is not persuaded that the performance of his duties as the flight leader on that day constitutes a "voluntary risk of life" as required for award of the AM.  Accordingly, while not unmindful or unappreciative of the applicant’s service to his Nation, the Board majority adopts the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force as the basis for their conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01085 in Executive Session on 8 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

				XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member

By majority vote, the Board recommended denying the application. ------------- voted to grant correcting the records and has submitted a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 06, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Available Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPR, dated 8 May 07.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jun 07.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Jun 07.
	Exhibit F.	Minority Report, dated 15 Aug 07.

					XXXXXXXXXX
					Panel Chair 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
			                         FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  The majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.

				XXXXXXXXXX
				Director
				Air Force Review Boards Agency

15 August 2007 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
FROM:   AF/HO 
1190 Air Force Pentagon RM 5E823
Washington DC 20330- 1 190 
SUBJECT: Minority Report in the AFBCMR Application of XXXX
The applicant requests that his Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be upgraded to an Airman's Medal (AM). The majority of the panel members recommend denial, but I do not agree with their determination. 
Then-First Lieutenant XXXX commander submitted him for the AM based on his actions as a security forces (SF) officer, a recommendation that was later downgraded to an AFCM by the SECAF Personnel Council. Subsequent attempts by later commanders to have the award upgraded to an AM have been denied. My minority opinion that the AFBCMR correct this injustice is based on three factors. 
First, the commendation and supporting documentation clearly establish his bravery, leadership, heroism, and risk of life and limb. When I read the account, all of which is substantiated, I had to ask, "What else did he have to do, die?" Although not technically armed, the rioting mob was pelting him with rocks throughout the most heated parts of the engagement, and he had given his shield to an airman who was without one. 
Second, much of the denial discussion from various disapproving agencies put emphasis on their opinion that XXXX was performing "normal" duties-a discriminator in AFI 36-2803. As XXXXXXXXXX would have said, "horsepucky." I see a clear distinction between fighting/controlling an undisciplined mob in a frenzy of bloodlust, and fighting an armed enemy under the discipline of their commanders, and I would suggest that the mob is oftentimes harder to control because it has reached the point where it has nothing to lose, or certainly is unaware of consequences. His actions were part of his mission, but the circumstances were anything but "normal." 
Third, I was strongly influenced by the package submitted in rebuttal to the downgrade by then-XXXXXXXXXX, who is known by AF peers and subordinates as being a no-nonsense, clear thinking and highly professional officer who garnered in his own right some of the AF's highest awards for bravery as a rescue pilot in Vietnam. 
Now retired-Lt General XXXXXXXXXX, former AF Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, would not have resubmitted the award if he had the slightest doubt about XXXX worthiness. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express my minority opinion. 

						XXXXXXXXXX
						Panel Member
						AF Board for Correction of Military Records