RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01646
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
		COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 NOV 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The applicant requests the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) covering the period 6 Apr 69 to 11 Feb 70, be upgraded to the Bronze Star Medal (BSM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He contends the original nomination for the BSM was downgraded, due to an oversight or lack of concern on the part of his senior leadership.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a statement from his former commander, which states in part, the downgrade of the BSM, may have occurred due to administrative problems that were the result of the separation of operational control and personnel administration, or confusion as to what the applicant’s role was at that time.  A copy of the Bronze Star Citation, and the Bronze Star Narrative, were included along with excerpts from the applicant’s military personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corp on 4 Dec 42, and was discharged on 22 May 44, to accept a commission.  He was commissioned a second lieutenant on 23 May 44, and progressively promoted to the grade of captain.  He was released from active duty and served in the Reserves until he was recalled to active duty on 12 Apr 53.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel and retired in that grade on 1 Apr 70.  His report of separation shows he served three years, three months and eight days foreign and or sea service.

His record reflects award of the Air Medal (AM), the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVCM), and the National Defense Service Medal w/1 Bronze Service Star.  He served 27 years, 3 months and 27 days total military service.

On 24 Apr 01, the applicant provided a copy of a proposed citation for the BSM and requested the aforementioned AFCM be upgraded.  DPPPRA informed him there was no evidence in his records to show he was recommended for or awarded the BSM.  He was asked to provide a copy of an order to verify his entitlement to the BSM.  He responded by stating in part, that there was no recommendation for the award in his records nor has he ever been awarded the medal.  He firmly believed that the intent of the writer of the proposed citation was for him to receive the BSM.  He believes his supervisor wrote the recommendation, however, due to unknown circumstances the recommendation was not forwarded through the proper channels.

The BSM may be awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The SAF/MRBP recommends denial.  MRBP states in part, the applicant and his former commander are dissatisfied with the downgrade of the BSM.  However, other than speculative comments made by the former commander, there is no compelling evidence that an injustice was done or that more senior levels of supervision got it wrong.  If the applicant can provide documented evidence that the BSM was the standard end-of-tour award for field grade officers in leadership positions during that time frame, the award could be considered for possible upgrade.

The MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states, the decision to deny him the BSM was an injustice.  His duties were to fly reconnaissance, direct air strikes of fighter aircraft on selected targets along with other missions in support of the war.  He believes that SAFPC gave more weight to the approving officer who downgraded the medal citation than to the person who wrote the citation and recommended him for the medal.  He believes he is deserving of the BSM and the person who initially downgraded the BSM to the AFCM made a mistake.

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 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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the member’s records are in error or unjust.  The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is noted and our decision should in no way lessen his service; however, insufficient documentary evidence has been presented to warrant upgrading the AFCM to the Bronze Star Medal (BSM).  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of his request for the BSM.  However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Director, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council and adopt her rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend awarding the requested relief.

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(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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 no considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-01646 in Executive Session on 17 October 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 25 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 23 Aug 07.
    Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Sep 07.
    Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Sep 07.