RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02624 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), ending , be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The actions for which he was recognized while deployed, as evidenced in his MSM citation, are worthy of a BSM. He specifically notes his 100 “outside the wire” missions, 46 missions as a convoy commander, and his role as a master convoy trainer. He further contends his MSM was originally submitted as a BSM but was downgraded due to Air Force scrutiny on the number of awards coming out of Afghanistan at the time his decoration was being submitted. He is grateful for the MSM but believes he is equally worthy of a BSM, as compared to fellow deployed airmen, who were awarded BSMs, at much more secure locations. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently a member of the Regular Air Force, serving in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). On 23 Sep 10, the applicant was awarded the MSM, for the period of to , by the United States Air Forces Central Command (USCENTAF) Commander. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends granting the applicant’s request to award the BSM. The BSM is governed by Executive Order 11046, which authorizes the Secretary of a Military Department to award the BSM to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguishes himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight; while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The USCENTAF Decoration Guidebook, 27 Dec 04, states the member must be physically present within a combat zone as declared by the appropriate military authority and qualify for receipt of imminent danger or hostile fire pay during the award period. Additionally, they must meet one or more of the following conditions: engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force or, serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. An individual whose entitlement to imminent danger pay is due solely to flying missions into the imminent danger pay zone does not qualify for a BSM. The USCENTAF Guidebook states the MSM is awarded for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or service to the United States. Do not award for aerial achievement. Individuals stationed within the area of responsibility, but who do not meet the qualifications for the BSM, may be awarded the MSM. While it is noted the applicant’s AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration Deployment/Contingency Operations, dated , does not mention the BSM, and the applicant does not have a recommendation for upgrade 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 proposed citation, or eyewitness statements, AFPC/DPSIDR believed based on the MSM recommendation package the applicant's actions were at least qualifying for consideration of the BSM. Should the board grant the relief sought, the MSM will be revoked so that the BSM can be awarded. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. It is noted AFPC/DPSIDR recommends consideration for upgrade to a BSM; however, the applicant’s chain of command felt the MSM was the proper award for his actions and USAFCENT approved the MSM. USAFCENT’s expertise and experience in determining between an MSM and a BSM is very credible. It is recommend the applicant submit additional supporting documentation, including statements from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement, from someone within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, or eyewitness statements. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provides further documentation to support his request, in the form of a signed letter from someone in his chain of command, with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement. The letter from his wing command chief wholeheartedly supports the upgrade from an MSM to a BSM. The letter highlights several key accomplishment and the risks involved in the applicant’s actions. In closing, the applicant’s former command chief notes he is unsure how the original citation was ever approved as anything other than a BSM. 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 injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, we believe the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPSID indicating that relief should be granted, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective action is not warranted. In this respect, we note the applicant has stated, as did a former member of his chain of command, that his accomplishments were at least equivalent of others receiving the BSM. However, there is no supporting documentation from the award originators to support this position. Specifically, the AF IMT 3994, Recommendation for Decoration, dated , clearly indicates the applicant was intentionally recommended for the MSM (it was not downgraded from a BSM) and is signed by two officers in his direct chain of command. It is more likely than not, these individuals are in the best position to make the appropriate award recommendation. Further, there is no evidence to validate there was external influence to limit the number of BSMs for deployed members, as he contends. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records not be corrected. 4. 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 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-2014-02624 in Executive Session on, 25 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, SAF/PC, dated 16 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Nov 14. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Dec 14, w/atchs.