RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02845 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) awarded for the period 11 Sep 67 through 30 Jun 74, be upgraded to the Legion of Merit (LOM). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1974, the original award approval correspondence was forwarded to Headquarters United States Air Force Europe (USAFE) for award of the LOM for superior service from 1967 to 1974. However, USAFE downgraded the award to a MSM stating the LOM was reserved for officers in the grade of colonel (0-6) and above. He understands enlisted personnel are now eligible for award of the LOM; therefore, the original award approval correspondence should be honored. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of memorandums, MSM citation, biography, letters of recommendation and newspaper articles. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Jun 54, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 1 Jul 74, the applicant retired from the Air Force. He served 20 years and 21 days of total active service. According to a Congressional Inquiry (CI) response dated 22 Jul 09, the applicant previously submitted a Congressional request for award of the LOM; however, AFPC/DPSIDRA was unable to verify award of the LOM as the applicant did not occupy a position of responsibility that met the criteria of the LOM. 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 C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant served in an additional duty of community relations liaison between Americans and the community of Fulda, Germany and their military. However, the position does not meet the criteria of serving in a qualifying position in accordance with AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards: DoD-Wide Performance and Valor Awards; Foreign Awards; Military Awards to Foreign Personnel and U.S. Public Health Service Officers; and Miscellaneous Information, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF), Chief of Staff (CSAF), and/or the War Department. In accordance with AFI 36-2803, it does not appear the applicant was serving in a qualifying position and rank. Colonels and above are of eligible rank and enlisted personnel must be a Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) and be in a qualifying position. The applicant does not meet either part of the criteria. The applicant was a Technical Sergeant (TSgt) during the time in question and his duty was that of Squadron Air Surveillance Operator with additional duties of Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), Disaster Preparedness Office and NCOIC, Squadron Information/Public Relations Office. The applicant provided a copy of his resume’ for the position of Regimental S-5, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, from Colonel O’---- --, in which he states “recommended him for award of the LOM for his G-A activities.” However, this is the only reference located referencing the LOM. In addition, no proposed citation or official recommendation was provided with his request, so even if he had the required qualifying position and rank, which he does not, the package would be considered incomplete. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP concurs with the recommendation of DPSID. The applicant did not occupy the requisite grade or serve in a qualifying position, both of which are required to be eligible and considered for the LOM. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He provided a copy of AF Form 642, Recommendation for Decoration, for award of the LOM; therefore, the statement by DPSID that the LOM was never requested is untrue. The paperwork submitted in his original request for reconsideration substantiates that he served in a very unique full-time position outside of his assigned Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) during his tenure in Wasserkuppe Mountain, Germany. Wasserkuppe was, and is the world’s most celebrated center for glider flying and known worldwide as Flyers Mountain. In other words, Wasserkuppe is the German national aviation treasure equivalent to America’s Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Fluent in German and married into a highly respected local German family, he became the obvious choice to initiate and conduct this program. His top-secret clearance qualified an additional appointment as liaison to the US and German military/civilian authorities on military emergency planning. He was tasked outside his AFSC to create an effective disaster control survival, denial, and evacuation plan to interface with panoply of military units in the forward area to create and maintain a comprehensive community relations program. As the 3M European Manager for Military Engineer Markets and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE)/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Standardization and Interoperability, he continued to assist the USAFE commander, at Wasserkupe, with local issues until the German Air Force took control of the installation. In further support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of AF Form 642, and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. 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 error or injustice. While the additional documentation provided by the applicant is noted, he has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the AF OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief sought in this application. 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-2014-02845 in Executive Session on 7 Jul 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence p was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, undated, w/atch. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 15. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 May 15, w/atchs.