RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03295 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM) for his service from 2 Aug 77 to 30 Aug 80. In the alternative, he be awarded the MSM w/1 BOLC. His DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 2 Jun 14 be amended to correct his first name. (Administratively Corrected) APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His LOM was downgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM); however, his records do not include a special order for the MSM. AFPC cannot locate a special order awarding the MSM. In the interest of justice he believes the entire package should be reviewed to determine whether he performed to the standard required for the LOM. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was retired on 31 Aug 80 in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). According to a letter dated 24 Jul 80, the Military Airlift Command Vice Commander (MAC/CV) downgraded a request for an LOM to the MSM with first Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM w/1 BOLC). The LOM may be awarded by the Secretary concerned to members of the United States Armed Forces, who after 8 Sep 39, have distinguished themselves by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service. The performance must have been such as to merit recognition of key individuals for service rendered in a clearly exceptional manner. Performance of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty, assignment, or experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for this award. For service rendered in peacetime, the term “key individual” applies to a narrower range of positions than would be the case in time of war and requires evidence of significant achievement. In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a special requirement or of an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner. However, justification of the award may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of important positions. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the LOM. The applicant’s request lacks eyewitness statements, sworn affidavits and a certificate. Without the complete package and proper documentation, his request cannot be reasonably considered. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff. The applicant previously submitted a Congressional Inquiry (CI) request for award of the LOM. In response to the CI, DPSID advised in a letter dated 23 Sep 13 they were unable to verify award of the LOM. There is also no official documentation in the applicant’s record, such as a special order, verifying he received the MSM w/1 BOLC. He again submitted a CI request to have the MSM w/1 BOLC upgraded to the LOM. On 13 May 14, the Secretary of the Air Force Legislative Liaison (SAF/LL) provided guidance per 10 U.S.C. § 1130 that the applicant’s original LOM recommendation would satisfy the reconstructed award recommendation criteria and the citation provided with the original LOM package satisfied the citation requirement; however, the package was lacking in that no eyewitness statements, sworn affidavits, certificates and any other related documentation was provided. Additionally, DPSID recommended the applicant submit his documentation, to include the Recommendation for Decoration dated 24 Jul 80, the statement from the recommending award official, citation for award of the LOM to include eyewitness statements, sworn affidavits, certificates, and any other pertinent documentation for consideration of the LOM to the AFBCMR. The applicant has provided the same documentation submitted in his CI inquiry. The package is still lacking eyewitness statements, sworn affidavits, or certificates. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: His reason for requesting the review was that if he was supposed to be awarded the MSM w/1 BOLC and it is not in his records, the entire process should be repeated. If in the Board’s judgment his actions rose to the level of the LOM, then he should be awarded the LOM. Currently, his records are incomplete based on the MAC/CV letter dated 24 Jul 80. The 2013 CI resulted in SAF/LL outlining the proper method for reconsideration. This is what he included in the docket. AFPC recommends disapproval stating that his request lacks “eyewitness statements.” However, the recommending colonel who observed his actions provided a signed letter, undated. During the first months of the period of 1 Jul 79 to 30 Jun 80 for which the AFOUA was awarded to the 1300th Military Airlift Squadron (1300 MAS), he was “dual hatted” as the squadron commander and operations officer. He had to perform duties of both positions which placed him in the position of having an abnormal range of duties. He had to ensure that the airlift support requirements, the Nicaraguan security support and the increasing airlift support demands of the pending Panama Canal Treaty negotiations were met without affecting normal squadron activities. This performance met the DPSID verbiage of “an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner.” His job performance during that period most likely contributed to the unit’s overall outstanding performance resulting in the AFOUA. While he prefers that he be awarded the LOM, he asks the Board to award the MSM w/1 BOLC should the Board adopt the recommendation that the LOM be denied. If not, he will need to restart the process with a new DD Form 149 for the correction to his records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAFPC concurs with the recommendation of AFPC/DPSID that the applicant’s request be denied. A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He has provided AFPC all the information currently available to him to support his request. While the information has been reviewed, no explanation was provided for the lack of orders for award of the MSM w/1 BOLC; therefore he requests in the interest of justice the entire LOM award be reconsidered. What has not been addressed by AFPC is what will happen if the Board decides against awarding the LOM. Will the Board award the OLC to the MSM? If so, will that happen without him having to initiate another DD Form 149. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice for award of the LOM. 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 (OPR) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant award of the MSM w/1 BOLC. While we note AFPC/DPSID states there is no official documentation in the applicant’s record, such as a special order, verifying he received the MSM w/1 BOLC, we find the MAC/CV letter dated 24 Jul 80 downgrading the request for a LOM to the MSM w/1 BOLC for his service from 2 Aug 77 to 30 Aug 80 sufficient to grant the requested relief. We also note that his request to correct his first name was administratively corrected. Therefore, 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 the APPLICANT be corrected to show that his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his retirement on 31 Aug 80, be amended in Item 13, Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, to include the Meritorious Service Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03295 in Executive Session on 14 Apr and 19 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. Due to the unavailability of --------, -------- will sign as the Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit F. E-mail, SAFPC, dated 18 May 15. Exhibit G. E-mail, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jun 15. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jun 15.