.wRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02799

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the appropriate number of Air Medals (AMs) for his over 100 missions as an active duty pilot.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served as a pilot for 17 years and would like his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, to reflect his AMs and also have the medal and devices mailed to him.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 8 Oct 48.

On 15 Jun 53, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge in order to accept a commission.  

On 16 Jun 53, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant upon graduation from pilot training where he was designated a distinguished graduate.  

Effective 1 Nov 69, the applicant was permanently retired by reason of physical disability, and was credited with 21 years, 1 month, and 7 days of active service.  

In a letter dated 6 Jan 71, the applicant’s request in obtaining Air Medals for his service in Southwest Asia from 1968-1969 was denied by the Air Force Personal Affairs Division, Directorate of Personnel Services.  

The AM is awarded to United States military and civilian personnel for single acts of heroism or meritorious achievements while participating in aerial flight and foreign military personnel in actual combat in support of operations.  Required achievement is less than that required for the Distinguished Flying Cross, but must be accomplished with distinction above and beyond that expected of professional airmen. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s military personnel record, AFPC/DP3SP was unable to verify any award of the AM.  In order to reasonably consider the applicant’s request, he would need to submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement preferably from someone within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Dec 15 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:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2015-02799 in Executive Session on 20 Sep 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 9 Dec 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Dec 15.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.