ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS  IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01255-2  COUNSEL:  HEARING DESIRED: NO  _________________________________________________________________  APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  Her deceased father’s records be corrected to reflect the award of the Air Medal with fourth and fifth Oak Leaf Clusters (AM w/4 & 5OLC).  _________________________________________________________________  RESUME OF CASE:  By virtue of an application dated 22 Mar 10, the applicant requested her father be awarded the Air Medal with fourth and fifth Oak Leaf Clusters (AM w/4 & 5OLC), Presidential Unit Citation with two Bronze Stars (PUC w/2BS) and the Good Conduct Medal (GCM) (administratively corrected). She contended the Air Force neglected to award these decorations to him upon his discharge. The Air Force office of primary responsibility was not able to substantiate the applicant’s claim to the aforementioned awards. On 9 Mar 11, the Board considered and denied the requests. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s case, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D (with Exhibits A through C).  In a letter dated 9 Apr 11, the applicant requests reconsideration of the AM w/4 & 5 OLC based on her belief the Board erred when making their determination. Specifically, the Board erred based on a reputed, but in fact never implemented or imposed, requirement of six missions for an AM OLC versus five. She offers a supporting affidavit and recommendation from a senior officer.  In support of her request, the applicant provides a statement of counsel and copies of a notarized affidavit, a recommendation for the AM w/4 & 5 OLCs and a report from the 44th Bomb Group Veterans Association database.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  _________________________________________________________________   
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:  After careful review of the evidence of record and the new documentation submitted in support of the applicant’s request for reconsideration, we do not find the evidence sufficient to overturn our original decision regarding award of the Air Medal, 4th and 5th Oak Leaf Clusters. The applicant’s counsel makes several arguments of why the Board’s prior decision is in error and also unfair due to the precedent established in the awarding of Air Medals in similar cases. The applicant’s counsel is correct that the Board has previously approved award of the Air Medal in cases similar to the applicant. Nevertheless, this Board has an abiding responsibility to consider each case brought before it on the basis of the evidence presented. It would be inappropriate for the Board to recommend granting relief solely on the basis it has done so before if the evidence does not support doing so. Counsel asserts that the Board is incorrect in stating that the number of missions needed for additional Air Medals increased from five to six. Counsel also states that recommendations for additional awards of the Air Medal were automatic after completion of the required missions. He further notes that even if a recommendation was required, the applicant’s records were destroyed by fire in 1973 and thus “one could hardly expect to find proof” the applicant was recommended for two additional Air Medals based on the completion of 12 additional missions in the face of such a circumstance. While regrettable the service member’s record may have been destroyed due to no fault of his, the burden of the existence of error or injustice rests with each individual applicant. Counsel has not provided evidence that supports his assertion that recommendations for Air Medals were automatic. Although he provides supporting statements, we do not find the statements sufficient to conclude the number of missions required did not change to six. Additionally, although the number of missions is important, we consider evidence the applicant was recommended for additional awards just as important or sufficient evidence that supports that the service member did not receive the additional awards due to administrative error or oversight and that he was the victim of injustice. While we honor the deceased service member’s service to the Nation, we still do not find the evidence provided sufficient to reverse our earlier decision.  _________________________________________________________________  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 AFBCMR BC-2010-01250  in Executive Session on 26 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:   The following documentary evidence was considered:   Exhibit D. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Mar 11,  w/Exhibits A through C.  Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel,  dated 9 Apr 11, w/atchs.