RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03891 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was awarded the Airman’s Medal (AmnM), instead of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), for his heroic actions on 15 Aug 85. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 15 Aug 85, his actions were heroic in nature and involved the risk of his life. His heroic actions in coming to the aid of a police officer in distress warrant award of the AmnM. In 2009, he discovered he had been recommended for the award of the AmnM, but said award was downgraded to the AFCM for outstanding achievement. He was not aware he had even been considered for the AmnM. In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel record, which include documents related to his original recommendation for the AmnM, AFCM certificate and special order, and an enlisted performance report (EPR), as well as military and civilian letters and certificates of appreciation and press coverage related to the matter under review. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: While serving on active duty in the Regular Air Force, the applicant was awarded the AFCM for outstanding achievement on 3 Sep 86 for his actions in coming to the aid of a civilian police officer on 15 Aug 85. The AmnM was established 6 Jul 60, and is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly nation who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Air Force after the date of the award's authorization, has distinguished himself or herself by a heroic act, usually at the voluntary risk of his or her life but not involving actual combat. The saving of a life or the success of the voluntary heroic act is not essential. The AmnM is not awarded for normal performance of duties. The AFCM is awarded to service members who, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force after 24 Mar 58, shall have distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement or service. Per the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, the AFCM can be awarded for outstanding achievement or meritorious service; or acts of courage that do not meet the requirements for award of the AmnM or BSM, and sustained meritorious performance by crew members. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial noting there is no evidence of a recommendation to upgrade the AFCM or official documentation concerning the disapproval and downgrade of the initial recommendation for the AmnM. The applicant has provided a detailed personal statement describing the incident, an evaluation of the criteria for the AFCM, and AmnM; as well as civilian documentation from the Denver Academy of Court Reporting (DACR), the City and County of Denver, Denver Police, and letters from his chain of command. The documentation provided attests to the courage the applicant showed in aiding a police officer. The applicant's documentation, notes that the original citation for the disapproved AmnM was the same as the citation for the subsequent AFCM, after removal of all references to courage and risk of life. The applicant contends the AmnM citation was truthful and correct; however, it was altered to meet the criteria for the AFCM. He believes his actions of 15 Aug 85 met the criteria for the AmnM, and was diluted to match the criteria for the AFCM, and he further believes this action created an injustice. The applicant did not provide any official documentation establishing the existence of an "informal policy" limiting the award of the AmnM. DPSIDR was unable to locate the reason for the disapproval and downgrade of the AmnM in the applicant's military personnel record. No recommendation was provided or located for upgrade from the AFCM to the AmnM. The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He believes the act of fighting an armed suspect who had badly beaten a veteran police officer and was in the process of murdering him characterizes courage and the fact that he was going to murder the police officer with a gun involved voluntary risk of life. He believes it was an injustice that he was not awarded the AmnM and asserts it was an error to award him the AFCM. His observations were not intended to convey a certainty that an informal policy existed so much as he intended them to convey what he was told as the rationale for AFCM instead of an AmnM. There is no paper that he has seen that indicates the AmnM was downgraded, in fact, there is no supporting documentation on the AmnM with the exception of a citation that was converted in 2009 and appeared in ARMS. If any official documentation existed, he would have pursued an upgrade, via an Inspector General Complaint, or request a Congressional Inquiry. Unfortunately, it is as though it never happened at all, which seems to him an injustice in and of itself because for an Airman’s Medal to be disapproved in the system, there should be supporting documentation. The advisory reads as if he obtained a recommendation for upgrade or if the official documentation could have been found, there would have been a recommendation for approval of the upgrade of the AFCM to an AmnM. There should have been a paper trail from origination of the decoration package through disposition, but that data simply does not exist. The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBP recommends denying the applicant’s request to upgrade his AFCM to an AmnM. MRBP notes the AFCM can be awarded for meritorious service, outstanding achievement, or an act of courage. Air Force policy at the time of the act allowed for award of the AFCM for an act of courage and therefore MRBP recommends changing the AFCM from "outstanding achievement" to "act of courage". The documentation provided reflects the applicant was nominated for award of the AmnM for his act of courage and heroism on 15 Aug 85. The documentation also reflects the AmnM was "DISAPPROVED.” The stamped disapproval indicates that the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB), the approval authority for this decoration, had considered the applicant for the decoration and it was disapproved by AFDB. The citation reflects the AFDB returned the decoration to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) to notify the nominating organization of the decision. The AFDB is the approval authority for this decoration and it is not delegated for approval at a lower level. Had the decoration been disapproved or downgraded at a lower level (Wing or Major Command), the AFPC recognition section would not have processed the decoration for AFDB consideration. At the time of the AFDB all available documentation, including witness statements and commendations were reviewed and considered. Further, as part of this advisory, documentation provided by the applicant and in the case file was reviewed for reconsideration of the AmnM. Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and in the AFBCMR case file, the AFDB properly considered the applicant for the AmnM and appropriately disapproved this level of recognition. An additional current review by the AFDB was accomplished and the AFDB concurs with the previous decision of the 1986 board. The AFDB considered and determined that the applicant’s heroism did not rise to the level required for award of the AmnM, due to lack of eyewitness statements (corroboration), and the applicant's statement of events provided with his application appear to embellish the events as documented in statements provided at the time of the act. The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He is disappointed in the advisory opinion that fundamentally accuses him of lying, misstating facts and patently discounts the veracity of written statements from the Denver Chief of Police and the Denver Deputy District Attorney. The statement by the Director, SAF Personnel Council impugns his character and makes clear a bias against his statements without citing any specifics and is unfairly prejudicial. He is a Chief Master Sergeant with 30 plus years of service, 10 plus years time in grade and finds it unconscionable that an advisory would make a written statement that calls his integrity and ethics into question and does so without specificity. He hopes the advisory opinion will be stricken from consideration unless the author is prepared to bring specifics that he will be allowed to answer; otherwise, the comments are inflammatory, judgmental, and prejudicial. The value credibility of the statements from the Chief of Police and the Deputy District Attorney meets the criteria of corroboration because the first is based on a police officer's statement to another police officer (Chief of Police) and the second is written by a Deputy District Attorney based on the sworn testimony of all four people present on that day and is further supported by a verdict from a jury in the criminal case. It is hard to imagine other sources could provide better corroboration because both are public officials operating under oath and bound by law to be honest. Both written statements clearly indicate he exhibited courage, risked his life by helping to stop the police officer from being murdered by an armed suspect. The applicant’s complete response, 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 warranting award of the Airman’s Medal (AmnM). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, including his responses to the advisory opinions rendered in his case, we are not persuaded that failure to award him the Airman’s Medal makes him the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant argues his actions were heroic and warranted award of the AmnM, we are not convinced the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB) that originally considered the recommendation erroneously determined that his actions, while courageous, were more appropriately recognized by the AFCM. In this respect, we note the comments of SAF/MRBP indicating the AFCM was, and still is, an authorized form of recognition for an act of courage and the AFDB acted properly and within its discretionary authority when downgrading his recommendation for the AmnM to the AFCM. We note that while the applicant may have been recommended for the Airman’s Medal, the Air Force Decorations Board was vested with the responsibility and authority to determine whether a recommendation should be approved. While the applicant may disagree with their decision, he has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the AFDB’s decision exceeded its discretionary authority or was arbitrary and capricious. Nevertheless, the current AFDB again reviewed the applicant’s file, but also determined that award of an AFCM was proper. We find it regrettable the applicant considers their review of his appeal to be “unfairly prejudicial;” however, we do not agree and based our determination in his appeal on whether sufficient evidence of error or injustice has been presented. 4. Notwithstanding the above, we agree with the recommendation of the SAFPC to change the reason for award of the AFCM from “outstanding achievement” to “act of courage.” Therefore, in the interest of justice we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 5. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 3 September 1986, he was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for an act of courage, rather than for outstanding achievement, for his actions on 15 August 1985. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03891 in Executive Session on 26 Jun 12 and 17 Jul 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the record as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR dated 31 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 10 Nov 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Nov 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 25 May 12. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jun 12. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jul 12, w/atchs.