RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02716 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The casualty report of his father’s death be corrected to reflect “battle-related” and his father be awarded the Purple Heart Medal (PH). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His father is being wrongfully denied the PH Medal because the DD Form 1300, Report of Casualty, dated 21 Apr 72, incorrectly documents his father’s death as nonbattle related. The actions which caused his father’s death were indeed battle related and the DD Form 1300, dated 11 Apr 72, correctly documents his father’s death as battle related. He believes the status of his father’s death was changed because of security reasons. The mission was a CIA operation in Laos and considered top secret mission. His father was responding to an ammunition dump destroyed by enemy forces and the enemy had rigged several pieces of ordnance left behind as booby-traps. Therefore, the ordnance that killed his father was a result of enemy action; these conditions justify the award of the PH Medal. The Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of his father’s team at the time of his death has provided several statements attesting to the conditions of his father’s death and validates the position the death was battle related. He contends the discrepancies between the two casualty reports were only recently discovered during a Congressional inquiry. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 Apr 72, the applicant was serving as a member of the regular Air Force, in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), when he was killed in the line of duty. On 11 Apr 72, the DD Form 1300, Report of Casualty, casualty report 673 (interim), indicates the applicant’s death was battle related. On 21 Apr 72, the DD Form 1300, Report of Casualty, casualty report 759 (final), indicates the applicant’s death was nonbattle related. On 6 Jul 72, the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force; the citation reads “ distinguished himself by meritorious service as an while engaged in operations against an opposing armed force from 21 Jan 71 to 7 Apr 72. During this period, while exposed to extreme danger from hostile enemy forces, sensitive armed munitions, enemy booby traps and clandestine devices, Sergeant Milton successfully accomplished priority special missions at classified locations in a combat zone. While clearing explosive hazards from an ammunition supply point, that had been destroyed by the enemy, Sergeant lost his life. By his heroic actions and unselfish dedication to duty in the service of his country, Sergeant has reflected great credit on himself and the United States Air Force.” The PH Medal is awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces who have been wounded, killed, or who have died or may hereafter die from wounds received in action against an enemy of the United States or opposing force as a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed forces, an international terrorist attack or during military operations while serving as a part of a peacekeeping force. A wound for which the award is made must have required treatment of the wound and shall be documented in the service members medical and/or health record. Award of the PH Medal may be made for wounds treated by a medical professional other than a medical officer, provided a medical officer includes a statement in the service member's medical record that the extent of the wounds were such that they would have required treatment by a medical officer if one had been available to treat them. In June 2000, the applicant’s family submitted a request to the PH Review Board, through the office of Congresswoman . The PH Review Board denied the applicant’s request. In June 2013, the applicant’s family submitted a second request to the PH Review Board, through the office of Congressman . The PH Review Board stood by the original disapproval and denied the applicant’s second request for the PH Medal. In August 2013, the applicant’s family submitted a third request to the PH Review Board. Although a member of the applicant’s chain of command at the time of his death provided information, the PH Review Board did not convene because it was determined no new evidence had been presented by the applicant. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFCS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. An initial DD Form 1300, Report of Casualty, is used to ensure families have an official document to get the decedents affairs in order. After a final determination on the circumstance surrounding a member's death is determined, a final DD Form 1300 is published. The final DD Form 1300 replaces the initial form as the official death certificate. After a review of the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s death, compelling evidence to overturn the determination on the final DD Form 1300 was not found. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFCS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The evidence was presented to the PH Review Board twice and award of the PH Medal was disapproved twice. The evidence regarding the applicant’s death does not meet the criteria for award of the PH Medal and there is no new substantial evidence with this request. Specifically, the supervisor was not present during the incident that caused the applicant's death; consequently his statement is not an eyewitness account. Further, there is supposition that there were booby traps or Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) present; however, no evidence was presented, nor eyewitness statements attesting to, an IED being the cause of the explosion. Additionally, while there are statements that munitions become armed when exposed to an explosion, no specific evidence was presented to support this claim. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DoDM 1348.33, Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff, and/or the War Department. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Dec 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02716 in Executive Session on 22 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFCS, dated 22 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Nov 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 14.