RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01261
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Oct 26, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM) and a new or updated DD Form 214 be sent to him.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received five Air Medals and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor with one Oak Leaf Cluster as a C-130E flight engineer from his four combat tours.

He was in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and believes that he qualifies for the medal.

He and others encountered many mortar attacks, large and small arms engagements, and stayed days and nights at many places in the combat zone.  He’s paying for it now. 

Currently the Veterans Administration (VA) has problems distinguishing “combat veterans” who served in the Air Force.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, copies of his Air Medals, requirements for the AFCAM, VA records, and a list of his unit assignments.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 11 Apr 02 and served for a 4-year period.  He has prior active service with the U.S. Army from 28 Sep 90 to 12 Sep 98.

Records indicate the applicant was awarded five Air Medals for meritorious achievement in aerial flight from 9 Apr 04 to 29 Aug 05. 

On 15 Mar 07, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the establishment of the AFCAM to recognized military members of the Air Force (airman basic through colonel) who actively participated in combat (ground or air). The principal eligibility criterion is that the individual must have been under direct and hostile fire while operating in unsecured space (outside the defended perimeter), or physically engaging hostile forces with direct and lethal fire. 

The applicant has been rated 100 percent disabled by the VA.

Other relevant facts are outlined in the AFPC/DPPPR opinion at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The criteria for the award of the AFCAM to be forwarded to USCENTAF must meet the following: The principal eligibility criterion is that the individual must have been under direct and hostile fire while operating outside the wire in a combat zone, or personally engaging hostile forces with direct and lethal fires.  For the purposes of this award, combat conditions are met when:

a. Individuals deliberately go into unsecured space (outside the defended perimeter) to conduct official duties, on the ground and in the air;

b. They come under enemy fire by lethal weapons while performing those duties;

c. Are at risk of grave danger.

Or, individuals defending the base (on the defended perimeter) and come under fire and engage the enemies with direct and lethal fire, and at risk of grave danger, also meet the intent of combat conditions for this award.

DPPPR states the applicant’s submission for the AFCAM was forwarded to the United States Central Air Forces  (USCENTAF) on 1 May 07 for consideration.  On 15 Aug 07, USCENTAF/CC disapproved the applicant’s request for the AFCAM.

The AFPC/DPPPR complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The text of all five of his Air Medals state, “…small arms fire, anti-aircraft artillery, surface-to-air missile and in the face of the enemy, threats or dangerous conditions.”  These events mostly happened in flight and sometimes close to the airfield but, definitely outside of the wire.

The applicant states he has 640.2 hours of combat flight and 317 combat sorties.  

He and others were under direct fire and hostile fire, outside of the air field, on the airfield, en route, at altitude, on ascent and on descent, outside of the wire.

He and others were deliberately going into unsecured space conducting official duties “in the air.”  He and others did come under enemy fire by lethal weapons while performing those duties.

He and others were outside the defended perimeter and at risk of grave danger.

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We carefully reviewed the documentation provided in support of the applicant’s appeal; however, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In this respect, we defer to the authority expert, USCENTAF/CC.  Persuasive evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that USCENTAF/CC abused his approval authority in making his determination. Our determination in no way is meant to demean the applicant’s accomplishments during the war on terror and it appears he has been appropriately recognized for his actions.  If he were to secure more compelling evidence, for example, the original package submitted for consideration of the award showing that USCENTAF/CC’s disapproval of the AFCAM constituted an error or injustice; we would be willing to review the information for possible reconsideration of his request.  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 Docket Number BC-2007-01261 in Executive Session on 24 October 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2007-01261:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 12 Apr 07.
    Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 16 Aug 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 07.
    Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 18 Sep 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair