RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03334

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX		COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Airman’s Medal.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an oversight, the request for award of the Airman’s Medal was not submitted in the normal two-year time frame.

On 6 Feb 07, without regard for his personal safety, he came to the aid of a Lewiston Police Officer who was being attacked.  For his actions he was awarded the “Valley Forge Medal for Heroism;” however, recently his former commander and his new supervisor stated, that he should have been submitted for the Airman’s Medal.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

At the time the applicant submitted his application he was serving in the Air National Guard in the grade of Master Sergeant (E-7).

The applicant provided a Valley Forge Cross for Heroism certificate awarded by the National Guard Association of the United States for his actions on 6 Feb 07.

In accordance with AFI 36-2803, paragraph 2.2.2, “Due to statutory time limitations, each recommendation for a decoration (except for the PH) must be placed into official channels within 2 years of the date of the act or achievement, or last day of the period of service, and final action (approval/disapproval, upgrade/downgrade) must be done within 3 years of the act, achievement, or service performed.”

In accordance with AFI 36-2803, Table 3.7. the Airman’s Medal is awarded for “Heroism involving voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those of conflict with an armed enemy of the US.  The saving of a life or the success of the voluntary heroic act is not essential.  Do not award for normal performance of duties (i.e., Security Forces, Firefighter Medical, Pararescue, etc.).” 

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 B and C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/MRBP) Decorations Board advise on whether the applicant's package would have been considered had it been submitted through official channels in a timely manner and whether he should be awarded an additional 10% increase in retirement pay.  DP3SP also noted, that if the applicant is approved for the Airman’s Medal, then the Valley Forge Medal for Heroism should be revoked as it would equate to dual recognition.  

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

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating that if the case had been submitted in a timely manner, there is insufficient documentation to establish voluntary risk of life as set forth in AFI 36-2803 (criteria for the Airman’s Medal) and extraordinary heroism, Title 10 U.S.C. Section 8991(2) Additional 10 percent for enlisted members credited with extraordinary heroism.  

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant provided a duplicate copy of his Valley Forge Medal for Heroism certificate in case it was not a part of his original submission. 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

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 SAF/MRBP and adopt their 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.

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-2015-03334 in Executive Session on 01 November 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03334 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Feb 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 20 May 16.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 2 Aug 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 16.
Exhibit E.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 29 Aug 16.

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.