RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00590 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While deployed to  Al Udeid, Qatar the AAM was earned by completing 10 combat sorties in April 2006.SAFCENT Form 1 lists
10 sorties flown in April 2006 and the points earned for each. The form was prepared in Oct 13 using data in the Flight Record system.

The applicant contends squadron leadership took no action to award the AAM believing the applicant would be deployed again to Qatar and continue flying additional missions. The applicant did not return.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 9 Sep 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
In April 2006, according to information provided by the applicant, he completed 10 combat sorties while deployed to Qatar.

On 8 Jun 07, the applicant was discharged and transferred to the Georgia ANG.

On, 28 Jul 14, the applicant was permanently disabled retired, and was credited with 11 years, 10 months, and 11 days of active service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. There is no evidence of award of the Aerial Achievement Medal in the applicant’s military personnel record.    The  USAF  CENTRAL  Command  Decoration  Guide  dated
27 Dec 04, states [ref AAM] completion of the required number of missions/points does not, in itself, justify the award. To be awarded the AAM, airmen must meet or exceed the professional standards of airmen and be officially recommended by their commander. The USAF CENTCOM Form 1, Justification for the Air Medal/Aerial Achievement Medal, prepared in Oct 2013, listing the 10 sorties completed in April 2006, is signed by the applicant but not by his senior squadron leadership.

The applicant has not provided a written recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement preferably from someone within the applicant’s chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, and eyewitness statements.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID 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 9 Sep 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
1.	

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-2015-00590 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 10 Aug 15. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 15.