RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03187 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His father’s service record be corrected to reflect the award of the following Air Force Medals: a. Bronze Star (BSM). b. Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). c. Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM). d. Army of Occupation Medal (AOM). 2. His father’s service record be corrected to reflect the authorization to wear the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Occupational Badge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His father never received the appropriate recognition at the conclusion of World War II. Based on the eligibility criteria, he should have been awarded the BSM for his service with the XXXst Material Squadron, the AFCM for his service and duty during the “Missions of Mercy”, and the AOM for his service in the Mariana Islands. 2. The Board should adjust the windows of eligibility for the HSM and the EOD occupational badge so that his father’s service dates meet their eligibility criteria. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The deceased former member initially entered the Army Air Corps on 1 Jan 43. On 24 Feb 46, the deceased former member was furnished an Honorable discharge, and was credited with three years, two months, and two days of active service. The service member’s WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge, and DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects the following Decorations, Citations and Badges: - Basic Munition Badge - American Service Medal - Good Conduct Medal - Asiatic Pacific Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars - World War II Victory Medal 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/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the EOD badge indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. They also point out the request was not submitted in a timely manner. The deceased former member separated in 1946 as member of the Army Air Corps. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the military had not yet created an EOD badge. An EOD patch was created in 1956 and was available to wear in 1957; however, there was no “Grandfather” clause granting the EOD patch to prior members. After consultation with the EOC Career Field Functional Manager, they recommend disapproval of the request to have the EOD occupational badge added to the applicant’s record. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. They also point out the request was not submitted in a timely manner. The BSM is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguishes themselves by heroic or meritorious achievement or service 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 AFCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States, below the grade of Colonel and foreign military personnel, who while serving in any capacity with the Department of the Air Force, after 24 Mar 58, distinguish themselves by outstanding achievement or meritorious service. The HSM may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces who, subsequent to 1 Apr 75, distinguished themselves as individuals or as member of the United States Military units or ships by meritorious, direct participation in a military act or operation of a humanitarian nature. The recipient must have been physically present at the designated location, having directly contributed to and influenced the action. Designated location is the immediate site(s) of the humanitarian operations as defined by the Presidential authorization of Federal assistance in the United States or the Department of the State request for assistance for overseas areas. The AOM is awarded for 30 consecutive days of service at a normal place of duty while assigned to or serving with the United States Occupation Forces during the timeframe after World War II. Military service in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater between 3 Sep 45 and 2 Mar 46, shall only be considered if the service member received the applicable theater campaign medal for military service in the theater before the inclusive periods mentioned above. It appears the service member’s official military personnel records were heavily damaged in the fire at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973, limiting the documentation available for review. Of the records that were available to review, they were not able to locate any official documentation, nor was any provided by the next of kin, to verify the service member met the eligibility criteria for the award of the BSM, AFCM, HSM, or AOM. In order to reasonably consider the next of kin’s request to award the BSM, he needs to submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, and eyewitness statement. The deceased former member’s service dates are prior to the authorization dates for the award of the AFCM and the HSM; therefore, rendering him ineligible. Finally, with regards to the AOM, there is no official documentation to verify the deceased former member served 30 consecutive days at a normal place of duty while assigned to or serving with the United States Occupation Forces. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes the opinions of both Air Force Advisories and bases his disagreements on the fact that so many World-War II veterans never received the appropriate recognition for their sacrifice and service to our country. The first Air Force Advisory stated that his father does not meet the eligibly criteria to wear the EOD occupational badge; however, his father participated in ordnance disposal operations during and after the war; therefore, he meets the spirit and intent to authorize the wear this badge. The second Air Force Advisory stated that they could not locate any copies of special orders or citations regarding the award of the BSM or AFCM. As the applicant stated in his original package the speed of his father’s redeployment at the end of the war impacted many service members from being appropriately recognized. The applicant also highlights the many accomplishments of the men assigned to the 501st Material Squadron justify them for the award of these two medals. The advisory also recommended the denial of the AOM based on where his father was assigned versus the area of eligibility; however, he contends that they failed to take into account that Japanese Forces occupied almost 80% of the Far East and that many of the territories were in Japanese hands until they were reoccupied. They also stated the HSM is not authorized for any acts prior to 1975. However, he argues again that many men and women served in humanitarian type operations like “Mission of Mercy” that warrant its award and limiting its award based on a specific date is wrong. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03187 in Executive Session on 25 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03187 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 18 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 15. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 May 15.