RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01840 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be entitled to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for a mission he flew over Laos (Operation Field Goal). 2. He be entitled to the DFC for a mission he flew during the Cuban Missile Crisis. ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It is possible he was not awarded the aforementioned awards due to the “Secret” classification, administrative errors, or loss of the recommendations. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ __ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to information provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), the applicant served as a pilot in the Air Force between 27 Apr 1957 and 25 Jul 1967. A recommendation for the DFC was submitted for the Cuba Missile Crisis mission in accordance with Title 10, U.S.C. Section 1130, to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) Awards and Decorations Board. The board returned the request without action because the package was missing chain of command endorsements. The applicant's chain of command resubmitted the recommendation, however, on 22 Sep 2009, the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board determined, that although the recommendation was commendable, it did not meet the requirements for the DFC. The applicant was approved for award of the Air Medal (AM) with a second bronze oak leaf clusters (w/2OLC) for the Cuban Missile Crisis mission. On 16 Mar 2010, the request for award of the DFC was resubmitted; however, no new evidence or supporting documentation was presented in order to reconsider the request. The DFC is awarded to any officer or enlisted person of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguished himself in actual combat in support of operations by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to 11 Nov 1918. The AM is awarded to U.S. military and civilian personnel for single acts of heroism or meritorious achievements while participating in aerial flight and foreign military personnel in actual combat in support of operations. Required achievement is less than that required for the DFC, but must be accomplished with distinction above and beyond that expected of professional airmen. ________________________________________________________________ __ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board has considered the request twice and disapproved/downgraded the recommendation to an AM. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was very disappointed that DPSID recommended that his request for the Cuban Crisis mission be denied. He asserts that DPSID’s statement “On 16 Mar 2010, the request for award of the DFC was resubmitted; however, no new evidence or supporting documentation was presented in order to reconsider the request," is not true. He provides additional documentation that was submitted through his congressman’s office on 16 Mar 2010 to SAFPC. He is astounded that documents have been lost, misplaced, or not considered regarding the recommendations for his DFCs for the Laos mission and for the Cuban Missile Crisis mission. In Apr 1961 he volunteered to go on a “Secret” mission as a reconnaissance pilot. The photographic imagery that he acquired on 28 Apr 1961 over the Plain of Jars was of such vital interest that he was to be recommended for a DFC for the mission. He was later transferred to the United States and had no way of checking on the status of the DFC. However, the Photo Interpreter who was in Laos said he would resubmit the DFC recommendation. The loss of his DFC recommendation for the Cuban Missile Crisis mission was very similar. Shortly after the Cuban Crisis his squadron commander transferred and he was also transferred to Europe. Shortly after his return to the United States, he was separated from the Air Force with a subsequent inter service transfer to the Marine Corps. Throughout all the changes in status and assignments and the years that passed, he had no idea of how he could ever trace the recommendations until he became aware that his congressman could assist him. Since then his congressman has been assisting him in an effort to receive the lost recommendations. He respectfully requests that the Board correct his record and entitle him to the DFC for the Laos mission and the DFC for the Cuban Crisis mission. In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides several Exhibits. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ __ 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. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation, we are not persuaded the requested relief should be granted. Therefore, 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. We note the applicant disagrees with DPSID and contends that he did provide new evidence through his congressman’s office on 16 Mar 2010 to SAFPC. However, according to SAFPC, they previously considered and reviewed both DFC requests for the Cuban Missile Crisis mission he submitted in 2009 and 2010 and confirmed all documents were included for their review and consideration. Regarding his request for the DFC for the Laos mission, although he and another pilot provided statements on the Laos mission, he has not provided evidence that other airmen received the DFC and how it was improper that he did not receive the DFC for similar or identical missions during the same period. Should the applicant provide the evidence noted above we would be willing to review his case for possible reconsideration. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ __ 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 Docket Number BC- 2012-01840 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 May 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 30 Jul 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Sep 2012, w/atchs. Acting Panel Chair