RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01937
								INDEX CODE:  107.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 December 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Bronze Star Medal (BSM) awarded to him for service in Iraq for the period 10 August 2003 through 5 December 2003, which was subsequently revoked by 9th Air Force (9AF), be reinstated.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Revoking the BSM awarded for service in Iraq was an unjust act, erroneously carried out as a by-product of his court-martial conviction at McGuire AFB, NJ, in January 2005.  He was found guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer because of a relationship with a junior officer who is now his wife and the mother of their two children.  He was not discharged, and served another 18 months before retiring after 20 years of service.

Subsequent to the court-martial findings, the prosecuting attorneys contacted 9AF and provided them some kind of information resulting in the BSM revocation.  9AF is the Numbered Air Force (NAF) in charge of personnel in the Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR), and he has not been able to find anyone in 9AF that has a documented reason for revoking the BSM.  McGuire AFB is under 21st AF, not 9AF; therefore, the prosecutors who contacted 9AF acted outside their purview resulting in an injustice that needs to be corrected.

AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.7, states: “Revoke an award if facts, later determined, would have prevented original approval of the award.”  Although nebulous, this paragraph, when referring to “facts”, implies facts that apply to the service for which the award is being presented, and these facts would have had to occur between the dates of 10 August 2003 and 5 December 2003 to prevent the award of his BSM.  In this case, the “facts” are not connected with either his place or time of service connected with the BSM award, which was awarded for service in Iraq, not McGuire AFB.

The facts of his court-martial at McGuire AFB have no bearing on the BSM awarded for meritorious achievement in Baghdad, Iraq.  The revoking order gives no explanation and was not accompanied by a legal explanation, and the lack of supporting documentation indicates a lack of substantiating facts to revoke the medal.  This revocation was the result of a phone call from the zealous prosecutors at McGuire AFB, and their actions resulted in this injustice and abuse of the AF system.  The revocation of the BSM is not consistent with the letter or intent of AFI 36-2803, or the AF justice system.

He is not proud of his actions that ended in a court-martial, and it is unfortunate that he will forever bear the cross for his indiscretions; however, he is proud of his service in Iraq.  The BSM was awarded for his honorable service in Iraq where he was subject to nightly mortar attacks and served to house, feed, transport, and protect his fellow airmen, soldiers, marines, and civil servants.  He left with blood on his boots from the attack on their living quarters, two bombings of the UN building, and the bombing of the Red Cross building.  He helped bring in an alarm system that helped to communicate the threat as well as warn their comrades.  As the Director of Logistics, he was working to buy armored vehicles to protect our personnel long before it became en vogue to try and get armor plating for vehicles.  The USAF thanked him for serving and protecting our own by presenting him the BSM, and he treasured this blessing and would once again like to have it properly reflected in his records that he served honorably in Iraq and was appropriately rewarded.  He would love to be able to proudly display this BSM for his family to show them what dedication and sacrifice are all about.

He should be allowed the honor and dignity he earned in Iraq.  He asks that the injustice of the revocation of the BSM by well-intentioned, but misguided, lawyers be corrected by reinstating the medal and correcting his records.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of an undated personal statement, SO TE-0913, dated 29 July 2003, a Letter of Evaluation for the period 10 August 2003 through 5 December 2003, SO G-2806, dated 12 July 2004, his BSM for the period 10 August 2003 through 5 December 2003, his BSM Citation for the period 10 August 2003 through 5 December 2003, an extract from AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, dated 15 June 2001, and SO G-1397, dated 16 February 2005.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

IAW AFI 36-2803, dated 15 June 2001, Table 2.1, the BSM is awarded for heroism or achievement, not involving participation in aerial flight, while engaged in an action against an enemy of the US, while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing force in which the US is not a belligerent party.  

AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.8, Special Procedures for Decorations Arising From Combat Operations, further states, in part,:  “To ensure consistency for decorations arising from combat operations, the NAF and JTF/CTF Air Component Commanders shall forward, in a timely manner, all recommendations for decorations arising out of combat operations, not within their authority to approve, to the MAJCOM Commander serving as the Air Component Commander to the supported CINC….  The MAJCOM commander… will consolidate decoration recommendations submitted by the NAF or Air Force Component Commanders.  To the extent feasible, they should be evaluated only after they have been aggregated…. After review, the MAJCOM commander… will forward those recommendations that he or she finds meet the criteria for awards to be approved above the MAJCOM level, to the Decoration Board of the Air Force Personnel Council….  The Director, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), will approve or recommend approval of those awards he or she determines meet the award criteria and are fully substantiated….”  For operations pertaining to OEF/OIF, 9AF was designated as HQ United States Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF) and as the Air Component Command to the supported CINC.  Beginning in June 2002, approval authority for all BSM nominations for OEF/OIF operations was delegated from SAFPC to 9AF/USCENTAF/CC.

Applicant was awarded the BSM for meritorious achievement by HQ USCENTAF SO G-2806, dated 12 July 2004, for the period 10 August 2003 through 5 December 2003.  He was subsequently arraigned by a General Court-martial at McGuire AFB, NJ, in January 2005, and charged with eight specifications of violating Article 133 of the UCMJ.  One of the specifications for which he was found guilty occurred during the period of time covered by his BSM nomination, that being Specification Six (6) in that he did, at McGuire AFB, NJ, between on or about 1 June 2002 and on or about 30 April 2004, wrongfully and willfully develop an unprofessional relationship of inappropriate familiarity with First Lieutenant------, a subordinate under his command, which conduct, under the circumstances, was unbecoming an officer and gentleman.  

USCENTAF/JA reviewed the request by the 305 AMW/CC to revoke applicant’s BSM, and rendered a legal opinion on 10 January 2005.  The revocation request stated that while applicant was deployed to Iraq, he made numerous “by name” requests for a female lieutenant to be deployed with him.  Thereafter, special exceptions were made to AMC policy wherein this lieutenant was sent to work with him at his deployed location.  Investigation revealed that prior to the deployment, applicant began an unprofessional relationship with this lieutenant and engaged in a sexual relationship with her while they were deployed, and it was further represented that the lieutenant became pregnant with applicant’s child.  The applicant was this lieutenant’s direct superior during the deployment, and was her commander prior to and after this deployment.  This unprofessional relationship continued after applicant returned from deployment, and, after the command at McGuire AFB discovered this and other misconduct in early 2004, he was relieved of command and arraigned for a general court-martial.  AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.7, states “Revoke an award if facts, later determined, would have prevented original approval of the award…The awarding authority revokes an award when the basis for award no longer exists…”  They opined that based upon the represented misconduct that applicant engaged in during his deployment, there appeared to be a sufficient basis to revoke his BSM, and that the award authority, USCENTAF/CC, makes the determination regarding revocation of this award.  His BSM was subsequently revoked by USCENTAF SO-1397, dated 16 February 2005.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial based on USCENTAF/CC/JA decision to revoke the BSM, awarded for achievement, due to his significant misconduct prior to and during deployment to Iraq, and the fact he was found guilty of misconduct during his court-martial in January 2005.  

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 July 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Based upon the represented misconduct that applicant engaged in during his deployment, there appears to be a sufficient basis to revoke his BSM, awarded for meritorious service vice heroism, and 9AF/USCENTAF/CC was the proper authority as approval authority for all BSM nominations for OEF/OIF operations had been delegated to them from SAFPC.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 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-2007-01937 in Executive Session on 30 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 27 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.