RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01371 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His official records be corrected to reflect that: 1. He was released from active duty due to “Combat Related Disabilities.” 2. He was promoted to the rank of Technical Sergeant (E-6). 3. He was awarded the following awards and decorations: a. The Army Good Conduct Medal (GCM) with three bronze loops. (Already reflected on his DD Form 214, dated 3 Feb 61) b. The United Nation Service Medal (UNSM)(Korea). (Already reflected on his DD Form 214, dated 5 Feb 55) c. The Korean Service Medal (KSM) (Already reflected on his DD Form 214, dated 5 Feb 55). d. The Republic of Korean Presidential Unit Citation (RKPUC). (Already reflected on his DD214, dated 5 Feb 55) e. The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). f. The Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). g. The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). h. The Air Medal (AM). i. The Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) with three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters (3BOLC). j. The Purple Heart (PH) Medal. k. The Senior Missile Badge. l. The Senior Aircrew Member Badge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was released from active duty on a medical discharge per the recommendation from the Flight Surgeon due to combat-related disabilities. He suffered an acute concussion and a separated shoulder when he was run over by a taxi on the flight line. Further, during a flight to Seoul, South Korea, his sinus cavities were severely injured when the aircraft made a rapid descent from 12,000 feet. He was hospitalized for a week with a bloody nose and sinus injuries. Both his severe concussion and nasal cavity problems were combat related. He was promoted to Technical Sergeant, but was released before the rank took effect. His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, is in error because it does not accurately reflect the awards and decorations he earned during his Air Force career. His DD Form 214 is missing the GCM with three loops, UNSM, KSM with a Bronze Arrowhead and two BSSs, RKPUC, AFEM, VSM, AFCM, AM, PUC with three BOLCs, PH Medal, Senior Missile Badge, and Senior Air Crew Member Badge. He received the AFCM from the Commandant of the Missile School for receiving such high grades. The AM was presented to him in Japan. He flew 28 combat missions and 55 combat support missions, enough for two AMs. With the changes in the criteria for award of the PH, he believes he qualifies for the PH for both the concussion and the disabling nasal cavity injury. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 6 Feb 51. He was progressively promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (E-5) on 1 Jun 55. He was Honorably discharged in said grade on 3 Feb 61 for convenience of the government and was credited with 9 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service. On 21 Jul 11, AFPC/DPSIDR notified the applicant the GCM w/3 Bronze Loops, the UNSM (Korea), the KSM, and the RKPUC are already reflected on the two DD Form 214s in his record. In addition, they were able to verify his entitlement to the Bronze Arrowhead Device and Two Bronze Service Stars (BSS) for his previously awarded KSM, the Korean War Service Medal (KWSM), and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA) with one BOLC. The applicant’s records are being administratively corrected to add one Bronze Arrowhead Device and 2BSS to his existing KSM, the AFOUA w/1BOLC, and the KWSM. However, AFPC/DPSIDR determined that he was not eligible for the remaining requested awards. Under no conditions can personnel receive the KSM and the AFEM for the same action. Therefore, because he was awarded the KSM, he is not eligible for award of the AFEM. As for his request for the VSM, a member must have served at least 30 days in Thailand, Cambodia, or Vietnam between 3 Jul 65 and 28 Mar 73 to be eligible; however, his date of separation of 3 Mar 61 makes him ineligible for the VSM. As for his request for the PUC, a review of his complete record could not identify where any of the units he was assigned to received the PUC during the period of time he served with the unit. Therefore, he is not eligible for the PUC. As for his request for the AFCM and AM, the applicant submitted no documentation or evidence that he was ever officially awarded the AFCM or the AM, and no citations, special orders or certificates could be located in his official military record to substantiate that he was awarded either the AFCM or AM. As for his request for the PH Medal, a member must be injured by the enemy or by direct result of enemy action. However, the detailed justification he provided indicates he was not injured by the enemy or as a direct result of enemy action. Therefore, he is not eligible for award of the PH Medal. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and AFBCMR Medical Consultant, which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to correct his records to reflect he attained the rank of TSgt, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant contends he was promoted to TSgt, but he was released from active duty before the rank took effect. The applicant was promoted to the rank of SSgt with an effective date of 1 Jun 55. He was discharged on 3 Feb 61 in the rank of SSgt. He never “pinned on” and actually wore the rank of TSgt before his discharge; therefore, he is not entitled to the rank. In addition, the applicant’s request was not filed within the three-year time limitation for AFBCMR applications. Finally, the applicant’s request may also be dismissed under the Equitable Doctrine of Laches, which denies relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed asserting his claim. The applicant waited more than 50 years after his discharge to petition the AFBCMR. Recommend denial based on his untimely submittal, and because the applicant provides no official documentation to support his contention. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial, indicting there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 15 Aug 11, the member was sent a memorandum from AFPC/DPSIM requesting additional documentation to substantiate his claim. He was asked to provide documentation of training in the launching of land based nuclear weapons, but did not provide supporting documentation. The Air Force Missile Badge recognizes those commissioned officers of the US Air Force (both Tactical and SAC ICBM) who have been trained in the launching of land based nuclear weapons under the direction of the National Command Authority. The Missile Badge is awarded as a permanent decoration upon a service member's graduation from missile operations or maintenance officer training. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit D. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s requests for his medical conditions of a concussion and a severely disabling nasal cavity to be designated as combat-related, as well as for award of the PH. In order for the applicant to receive a medical discharge, there must be an illness or injury that precludes the reasonable performance of the duties of the office, grade, rank, or rating that imposed a dedicated risk to his health and well being as well as others, if retained, or resulted in worldwide disqualification of a sufficient duration and level of duty restriction, among other determinants of unfitness. However, the evidence is insufficient to reflect that either of these claimed conditions rendered the applicant medically unfit at the time of his release from military service on or about 3 Feb 61. In fact, no evidence is provided to indicate the applicant received, or should have received a medical discharge, as would be reflected in service treatment records, narrative summaries, or imposed physical profile restrictions. Nor is there evidence, e.g., witness statements from credible sources, flight reports, accident reports, and service treatment records that corroborates the applicant’s claim of sustaining injuries which he believes qualifies him for the consideration for combat- related disability. Moreover, the available evidence does not reflect the applicant received, or should have received, a Medical Evaluation Board and referral to a Physical Evaluation Board for a disqualifying or unfitting medical condition. Further, other than the applicant’s personal statements, no evidence is supplied that reflects the applicant was unable to reasonably perform his military duties at the time of his release from military service nor is there evidence of inadequate job performance caused by a medical condition. In regard to a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability rating, unlike the DVA, which offers compensation for any medical condition determined to be service incurred [operating under Title 38, U.S.C] without regard to its impact upon a member’s fitness to serve or narrative reason for release from service, the military Disability Evaluation System, operating under Title 10, U.S.C., only offers compensation for and when one or more medical conditions causes career termination; and then based only to the degree of impairment present at the “snap shot” time of final military disposition, and not upon future occurrences. Thus, the mere presence of a medical condition does not automatically render a member medically unfit for continued military service or unable to complete a term of enlistment. Pertaining to the request for the award of a purple heart, the Medical Consultant found a lack of proof that his injuries were caused by the enemy or were a direct result of enemy action and a lack of documentation to substantiate medical treatment was received; or a statement from a medical officer attesting that an examination revealed that an injury of the type incurred would or should have received medical treatment. In summary, the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice to warrant the requested changes to the record. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In Feb 12, the applicant provided an expanded statement in which he responds to several of the Air Force advisories, and provides additional documentation. The very condition that the AFBCMR Medical Consultant cites, “Barotrauma,” is exactly the condition that he is rated 100% disabled for by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). He provides a letter from the DVA authorizing his use of commissaries and exchanges which cites his 100 percent service-connected disability rating. In addition, he was one of the first military personnel to receive the Air Force Missile Badge, which was not restricted to officers at the time. He was the lone Air Force Technical Inspector and responsible for the Atlas D & E, plus he was the Project Manager for all Titan One Technical Orders and Manuals. He filled a major’s position and had a nine-level qualification. He provides multiple documents showing his completion of training courses related to rockets, missiles, and missile maintenance; a May 58 photograph he claims is of the group of the first recipients of the “AF Missile Badge;” and, a 2004 Membership Directory for the “Association of Missileers” reflecting his last name as being associated with the Atlas ICMBs. A complete copy of the applicant’s Feb 12 letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. On 2 May 12, the applicant provided another expanded statement requesting his DD214 be changed to read “Separation for Medical Retirement.” The basis for this request is that the DVA assessed him to have a service-connected disability evaluated at 100 percent. He is entitled to the PUC with 2 BOLC for his time with the 61st Troop Carrier Squadron, 314th Troop Carrier Group, 314th Troop Carrier Wing, Ashiya, Japan, in 1953-1954. He received the AM after completing 28 Combat Missions and 55 combat support missions in Korea, in Combat Cargo. He should be eligible for the PH for “Barotrauma” suffered in a mission to K-16 Seoul during enemy bombing of that base. He also has been rated as disabled for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He provides his DVA disability paperwork. A complete copy of the applicant’s 2 May 12 letter, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the following requests made by the applicant: a. The Purple Heart (PH) Medal, a medical disability discharge, and having his service connected disabilities designated as combat related. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his rebuttals, in judging the merits of these requests; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice with regard to his request to have his service connected disabilities designated as combat related, a medical disability discharge, or for awarded the PH. b. Promotion to the grade of Technical Sergeant. Regarding this request, we note the comments of AFPC/DPSOE indicating the applicant’s records indicate he was discharged in the rank of Staff Sergeant and the applicant has presented no evidence whatsoever to indicate he was ever selected for promotion or served in the higher grade. We agree with their recommendation to deny this request and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our determination that this requested relief be denied. c. Request for multiple awards and decorations. The applicant requests entitlement to the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Medal (AM), and the Presidential Unit Citation with three bronze oak leaf clusters (PUC w/3BOLC). Regarding these requests, we agree with the determination of AFPC/DPSIDR that these requests should be denied and find the evidence the applicant presented is insufficient to establish he is qualified for these particular awards. We note that AFPC/DPSIDR has determined the applicant’s record already reflects his entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal (GCM) with three bronze loops, the United Nations Service Medal (Korea), Korean Service Medal (KSM), and Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation (RKPUC). Therefore, no action is required by this board in regard to these specific awards. In addition, AFPC/DPSIDR was able to verify his entitlement to the Bronze Arrowhead Device and two Bronze Service Stars (BSS) for his previously awarded KSM, the Korean War Service Medal (KWSM), and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with one BOLC (AFOUA w/1BOLC) and has corrected his records administratively. d. Senior aircrew member badge. We note the senior aircrew badge is awarded for achieving the 7-level qualification or for cumulative flight hours. However, the applicant’s records indicate the highest level he served in was the 5-level in AFSC 43151B and he has submitted no evidence to establish that he achieved the requisite skill level in his AFSC or accumulated sufficient flying hours to qualify for award of the senior aircrew member badge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting this specific request. 4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the applicant qualifies for award of the senior missile badge. We note the comments of AFPC/DPSIM indicating there is no evidence the applicant met the criteria for the badge; however, in view of the documentation provided by the applicant in response to the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, we are convinced that a preponderance of the evidence indicates the applicant was indeed qualified for award of the senior missile maintenance badge and therefore believe it appropriate to resolve any doubt in the applicant’s favor in this respect and recommend his records be corrected as 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 he was awarded the Air Force Senior Missile Badge. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01371 in Executive Session on 20 Nov 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 11, w/atch Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 28 Sep 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Oct 11. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Nov 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 11. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Feb 12, w/atchs. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 May 12, w/atchs. Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Jun 12. Panel Chair