RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00061
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect award of the Bronze Star 
Medal (BSM).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Army approved her for award of the BSM for her actions in 
combat while deployed to Afghanistan.  After receiving an 
Article 15 subsequent to her deployment, the Air Force revoked 
the BSM and she was never issued the medal.  The BSM was earned 
by actions not related to the Article 15 she received and it is 
unjust to punish her twice.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Dec 93, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  
On 1 Jan 14, she retired from active duty and was credited with 
20 years and 15 days of total active service.
According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 8 Aug 
12, she was awarded the BSM for exceptionally meritorious 
service as the flight superintendent while deployed in support 
of Operation Enduring Freedom from 7 Mar 12 to 7 Sep 12.
On 6 Nov 12, the applicant received an Article 15 for adultery, 
in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ).  As a result, her punishment consisted of 
reduction to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) (suspended), 
forfeiture of $1,794.00 pay and a reprimand.
On 6 Nov 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 
15 punishment and, on 7 Nov 12, elected not to appeal.
On 18 Jan 13, the Article 15 was reviewed and determined to be 
legally sufficient.
On 14 Apr 13, the applicant’s permanent orders authorizing the 
award of the BSM was revoked.



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
	
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  The applicant’s BSM was revoked 
by the original approval authority, the Army.  The revocation is 
not additional punishment as the applicant contends because the 
award would not have been made if the action causing the Article 
15 was known prior to the award.  Additionally, Army Regulation 
(AR) 600-8-22 requires an award be revoked if subsequent 
information is revealed that would not have warranted the award 
had it been known at the time of the award.  The actions by the 
approval authority to revoke the BSM are correct and well within 
the regulations, as the applicant’s service during the inclusive 
award period was not honorable and resulted in Article 
15 punishment.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial.  After review of the applicant’s 
request, supporting documents, the BSM criteria, the Army 
Regulation, and DPSID’s advisory, they concur with DPSID in 
recommending disapproval for award of the BSM.  The previous 
decision to revoke the BSM is within the guidelines of AR 600-8-
22, paragraph 1-17.

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 20 Jun 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no basis to recommend the relief sought in application.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-00061 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 25 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 29 May 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 14.