RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03959 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Medal (AM). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was recommended for the AM for meritorious achievement by the pilot of a B-26 which he repaired shortly before an important combat mission in Korea; however, the AM was never processed and was not entered into his official military record. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his submission for the AM through a congressional member; a letter and note from the B-26 pilot; his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States; and historical information o the 13th Bomb Squadron in Korea. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 9 January 1952 to 20 December 1955. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states the AM is awarded to United States military and civilian personnel for single acts of heroism or meritorious achievements while participating in aerial flight and foreign military personnel in actual combat in support of operations. Required achievement is less than required for the Distinguished Flying Cross, but must be accomplished with distinction above and beyond that expected of professional airmen. DPSIDR indicates that after a careful review of the applicant’s service records, they were unable to locate any official documentation, such as a citation or special order, which would verify that the applicant was recommended for, or awarded the AM. There is no specific eyewitness account of the applicant’s actions involving his repair of the B-26 bomber aircraft, other than what has been provided by the applicant himself. The two documents from the pilot of the aircraft, do not address any details of the incident, and no other eyewitness statements have been provided. The applicant submitted a Congressional Inquiry in October 2005 requesting entitlement to the AM. He was informed of the National Defense Authorization Act rules which guide the submission of requests for entitlement of awards and decorations, including the AM. In addition, he was notified that the documentation which he previously submitted for review was insufficient to justify entitlement to the AM. No additional documentation has been provided by the applicant. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 December 2011 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 contention that he was recommended for the AM for repairing a B-26 before an importance mission, we are not persuaded that his actions meet the criteria for award of the AM. In this respect, we note the AM is awarded for single acts of heroism or meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight. As such, since the applicant’s actions were not performed during aerial flight, he does not meet the prerequisite requirement for this decoration. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03959 in Executive Session on 8 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 362603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03959 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 15 Dec 11. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Dec 12.