RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05558 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Airman’s Medal (AmnM) for his actions following the 2010 Earthquake in Haiti. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Pararescueman (PJ) Team Leader received the AmnM for performing duties that all pararescue team members performed. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of the Record of Proceedings and the directive for the team leader’s correction; Power Point presentation from the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) of Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE; letter from Team Leader; denied AmnM citations and narratives, memorandum of earthquake operations, reconsideration memorandum from AFSOC/cc; electronic mail from Virginia Task Force One (VA- TF1) Article and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in Port-au-Prince, Haiti as a Pararescue team member while assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron, in direct support of Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE, from 13 to 23 Jan 10. The five man team was attached to the Fairfax County Urban Search and Recovery team while in Haiti. On 5 May 10, the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for award of the AmnM. On 2 Nov 11, the AFDB reconsidered and denied the Air Force Special Operations Commander’s (AFSOC/CC) request for reconsideration for the AmnM. On 2 Aug 12, the Board considered and granted the Pararescue Team Leader’s request for award of the AmnM for his actions during Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE. On 17 Sep 13, the Board denied the applicant’s request for entitlement to a 10 percent retirement pay increase. The AmnM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States or foreign military personnel who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Air Force, distinguish themselves by heroism involving voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those of actual conflict with an enemy. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBP recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant and his team were organized, trained, and equipped to perform rescue and recovery operations. In addition, they were on orders and tasked to provide civil search and recovery in response to the earthquake devastation in Haiti. While the applicant’s acts and achievements in performing this mission are noteworthy and may have been beyond the scope of normal duties, the AmnM is not the appropriate recognition. However, other military decorations such as the AF Commendation Medal (AFCM) or Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) may be more appropriate. MRBP notes that the nomination package on the applicant was reviewed by the AFDB twice previously and recommended for downgrade. When disapproving award of the AmnM to the applicant, the AFDB recommended the achievements be recognized with a decoration in the purview of the nominating command, such as an Air Force Commendation Medal or Meritorious Service Medal. There is no evidence that command took action to award either of these medals to recognize his actions. According to Air Force Instruction 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, the AmnM is awarded for "voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those of conflict with an armed enemy of the US. The saving of a life or the success of the voluntary heroic act is not essential. Do not award for normal performance of duties" (emphasis added). Further, MRBP notes that according to the Commandant of the Pararescue School, a two-week training course is offered on Structural and Confined Spaces. However, it is not a requirement for mission qualification or upgrade training. Collapsed structure principles are taught on shoring techniques and setting up mechanical advantage rope rescue systems to retrieve rescuers in the event they become incapacitated. The BCMR application does not contain any additional substantial information regarding the applicant's actions while deployed to Haiti that was not previously available to the AFDB. The Pararescue team was tasked to deploy to Haiti in support of earthquake relief efforts. However, the team deviated from their original orders/mission, leaving the airport to assist the Fairfax County Rescue Squad. Although there is evidence of risk of life for entering the damaged buildings, it is unclear whether the individuals would have been censured for refusal to proceed. The BCMR approved the AmnM for another member of this team. However, there is no documentation that reflects the BCMR's rationale. There is evidence of other Pararescue team members being recognized with the AmnM for earthquake relief actions, including Oakland, CA, in 1989, and the Philippines in 1990. However, only the citations for the individuals involved are available. Pertinent information from the complete decoration package considered by AFDB including the status, roles, responsibilities, background, experience, and training levels is not available. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter from the Team Leader (recipient of the AmnM), he notes several discrepancies in the advisory opinion, specifically, regarding references to their training in Structural and Combined Spaces. Because of the devastation in Haiti, this training was not useful which made this a more hazardous and dangerous mission. He notes that the applicant or any of the PJ would not have been censured for refusing to enter any one of the many structures and that most individuals receive the AmnM for one act of courage. The PJ's in Haiti did multiple acts of heroism, that is well documented by AFSOC leadership’s power point presentation, video and narrative recommendation for the award, which were included with the initial and resubmitted award packages and had been researched and proven from all that witnessed the applicant's and the other PJ’s actions during Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE. As documented in (BC-2012-00124), the Board ruled “The actions involved voluntary risk of life, under extreme conditions, against insurmountable odds." This can truly be said for the applicant’s actions along with the other two PJ's on his team. How much more "rationale" does MRBP need? Senior AFSOC leaders reviewed the job duties/description compared to their actions in Haiti and all agreed that the Pararescue Team, to include the applicant, deserved the AmnM. The team was interviewed multiple times by senior enlisted and commissioned officers in AFSOC before they submitted the medal recommendation a second time. There is a vast amount of evidence enclosed in the initial and resubmission package that he honestly feels was not reviewed. No one would have submitted the applicant or the PJ Team for the AmnM if AFSOC leadership did not think their actions warranted it. The AFSOC leadership reviewed the applicant's and all PJ's in Haiti's actions individually and determined they all had specific instances that each one performed alone or with other team members to warrant this award. Even the Career Field Manager was "extremely excited" about the outcome of the Board results and assumed, as did AFSOC leaders, that the other three PJ’s would receive the same recognition that he received. In support of his appeal, the Team Leader provides letters of support, with attachments; letter of commendation from the AFTER Chief of Staff, and other supporting documents. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting corrective action. We note that the AmnM was awarded to the Team Leader and the applicant believes relief should be granted on the same basis. After carefully reviewing the available evidence, it is our opinion that the applicant’s request should be approved. In this respect, we note that each member of the team played an equal role in the mission’s success. Moreover, their individual acts of heroism were consistent with those of the Team Leader and involved the same voluntary risk of life under extreme conditions against insurmountable odds. While SAF/MRBP recommends denial stating the AmnM is not the appropriate recognition, we find the evidence is sufficient to recommend approval for the AmnM. Although not requested by the applicant, generally, when an AmnM is awarded, SAFPC determines entitlement to a 10 percent increase in retirement pay. In view of this, we considered the applicant for the additional pay; however, we did not find substantive evidence that his actions on the days in question rose to the level of "extraordinary," as required to be considered for award of the 10 percent increase in retired pay. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend approval for entitlement to an additional 10 percent increase at retirement. Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to the extent indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Airman’s Medal for his heroism involving voluntary risk of life while participating in Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE from 13 January 2010 to 23 January 2010. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05558 in Executive Session on 31 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 18 Sep 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 Sep 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Team Leader, dated 14 Oct 13, w/atchs. Panel Chair