RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04003 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Combat Action Medal (CAM). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was qualified but not submitted for award of the CAM for A-10A combat missions flown from Bagram Air Base (AB), Afghanistan in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) from 6 Nov 2002 to 1 Jun 2003. In addition to being the 455th Expeditionary Operations Group (EOG) Commander, he was the A-10A flight leader and expended live ammunition in direct support of the 82nd Airborne Division and U.S. Army Special Operations units. He flew 54 combat sorties in Afghanistan. He earned this medal for his A-10A combat sorties on an extended, voluntary deployment. He commanded 500 personnel, the U.S. Air Force compound and flight operations at the toughest air base in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The CAM was not authorized until 15 Mar 2007. At this time, he had just returned from another deployment and was in a demanding position. In Apr 2008, he reinjured his back and has had many medical procedures. He has spent four years submitting paper work to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his medical issues. For these reasons, he is late in submitting his CAM application and hopes that his request will not be discounted because it was submitted late. He submitted his CAM package in Jan 2013 and was told that the Decoration Recommendation (DÉCOR 6) was completed but that United States Air Forces Central Command (USAFCENT) had to approve his package. USAFCENT responded that they were not responsible for retired personnel and would not consider his application. His package was sent back to him but all that arrived was an empty envelope. He requests the Board make a “yes” or “no” decision on his CAM. He was the commander and thus there was only a brigadier general above him in his chain of command. The CAM application is one of the most important medals of his career. He believes he has met all the criteria and more. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the CAM application, ARPC/DPTS letter, AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations; a personal statement, USAFCENT Form 1, Air Medal (AM) and Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) Mission Information-Justification Sheet; NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service; DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; Bronze Star Medal (BSM) certificate and citation and various other documents associated with his request. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 Jul 2008, the applicant was retired from the Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PAANG). On 15 Mar 2007 the Secretary of the Air Force approved establishment of the Air Force CAM to recognize any military member of the Air Force (airman basic thru colonel) who actively participated in combat (ground or air). The principal eligibility criterion is that the individual must have been under direct and hostile fire while operating in unsecured space (outside the defended perimeter), or physically engaging hostile forces with direct and lethal fire. On 15 Jan 2013, ARPC/DPTS in a letter to the applicant provided the instructions on how to submit the CAM award package to USAFCENT and advised him that the Board would not consider a case until all avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted. In a letter dated 17 Dec 2013, the USAFCENT Decoration Processing Unit advised the applicant his request for the CAM was disapproved but In Accordance With (IAW) DODM 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, C3.3.7 and AFI 36- 2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, para 3.3.8, he could submit a one-time request for reconsideration of the original award. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DPSID recommends the request be denied and that the applicant submit for a one-time reconsideration of the CAM to USAFCENT in order to exhaust the available administrative remedies. The applicant’s request for the CAM was forwarded to USAFCENT. On 16 Dec 2013, USAFCENT disapproved the request stating the justification did not support the recommended award but the applicant has one year from the date of the disapproval to submit new relevant documentation not previously submitted for a one-time reconsideration. In order for the one-time reconsideration to be reasonably considered, the applicant needs to provide new relevant documentation not previously considered within one year (16 Dec 2013) [sic]. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff. The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He wants to emphasize several points and correct the misunderstandings in the evaluation. He was the 455 EOG Commander from 11 Nov 2002 until Jun 2003. He flew 54 combat missions in the A-10A, his A-10 sorties in OEF include convoy escort, aircraft/helicopter escort, over flight of small Special Forces units, pre-planned close air support, missions with NATO forces and mostly flying the U.S. Army fortress on the Afghanistan and Pakistan Border. On 12 Mar 2003, his flight of two A-10s came to the direct aid of an Army convoy requesting immediate Close Air Support (CAS) from an ambush of Taliban terrorists. On another mission, his flight flew at extremely low altitude to deter cars from entering a town in support of a Special Forces raid on a heroin processing house. In another operation, he dropped flares over a suspected Taliban leader’s house in the middle of the night. He submitted the CAM package in the spring of last year and was told initially that the DÉCOR 6 for the award was already completed but that AFCENT had to approve the package. AFCENT said that they were not responsible for noncurrent personnel. In Afghanistan as the 455 EOG Commander there was only a brigadier general above him in the chain of command. He has no way of knowing where the generals in his chain are or if they have since retired but they would vouch for the information he has provided. He is submitting this evidence now in order to receive an important medal. He has fulfilled all of the CAM criteria and more. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has not 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 error or injustice. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. The Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this application and indicated there is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued. In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level, as a subordinate level of appeal exists that has not first been depleted. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that that 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 Docket Number BC-2013-04003 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following pertinent documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jan 2014, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Feb 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 2014, w/atchs. 1 2