RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00559 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished 
Flying Cross (DFC), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was recommended for the DFC, 1OLC for a mission he flew on 
12 Aug 73. He does not understand why the Pacific Air Forces 
(PACAF) stopped giving out awards and decorations when Vietnam 
went into a peace-time mode. He would like a written 
explanation on why his was denied the award. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of 
letters, a citation, and flight records. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Available records reflect the applicant served on active duty 
from 8 Apr 71 to 21 Jan 76. 

 

The applicant was nominated for the DFC, 1OLC; however, the 
PACAF Awards and Decorations Board recommended the award be 
disapproved and no lesser decoration be awarded. The award 
authority concurred with the recommendation and denied the 
decoration. Due to the passage of time, there are no records 
available which provided the rationale for denying the 
decoration. 

 

The DFC is awarded to any officer and enlisted person of the 
Armed Forces of the United States who shall have distinguished 
themselves in actual combat in support of operations by heroism 
or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial 
flight. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states that based upon 
the approval authority having authority to approve or disapprove 
a decoration recommendation, they were unable to verify an 
injustice. In addition, they were unable to locate official 
documentation that states what reason the applicant was denied 
the DFC, 1OLC. Further, based on their review and the decision 
made by the approval authority, they must concur with the 
approval authority and recommend denial of this request for an 
explanation on the reason why the applicant was denied the DFC, 
1OLC. 

 

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 14 May 10 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the 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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
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-2010-00559 in Executive Session on 13 July 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 20 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair