RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01521

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) awarded for his actions on 1-2 May 99 be changed from being awarded for extraordinary achievement to being awarded for extraordinary heroism with award of the valor (“V”) device.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions from 1-2 May 99 were singularly distinctive, gallant, conducted without regard to personal safety, and represented a high degree of aerial skill in the presence of immediate danger.  He would have suffered no repercussions or stigma had he simply egressed the threat area and taken no action.  The characterization of his DFC was unjust when compared to other DFCs and even many Silver Stars (SS) awarded during this period.  Furthermore, he believes his deployed commander had a personal animus toward him and that may have played a role in the errant submission of his DFC.  He only discovered there were two separate classifications of DFC in 2012 when he saw another Air Force member with a DFC with a “V” device.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 30 May 90.

Under Special Order GB-86, dated 7 Jan 00, the applicant was awarded a DFC for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight for his actions on 1 May 99.  

On 1 Aug 14, the applicant retired, and was credited with 24 years, 2 months, and 1 day of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The DFC may be awarded to any person, who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguished themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight.  The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.  Awards will be made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained operational activities against an armed enemy.  As of 3 Jun 04, the “V” device was authorized for wear on the DFC awarded for heroism on or after 18 Sep 47. 

The applicant implies his deployed commander was biased towards him and appears to imply that because of that bias the deployed commander intentionally submitted the DFC for extraordinary achievement as opposed to heroism.  There is no documentation in the records to support his characterization of this deployed commander, nor did the applicant submit such documentation.  Further, the applicant did not submit any documentation to show his approved DFC was unjust compared to other awards during the same period.  The recommendation for the DFC was reviewed by and ultimately signed by the approval authority as being awarded for extraordinary achievement.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFHRA/RS does not make a recommendation, but states a review of the evidence provided portrays no policy or criteria violations in the bestowing of the DFC award.  The applicant’s perception that his career or actions have been slighted due to the wording of his DFC citation is unsupportable with the documentation provided.  

A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  After review of the individual’s records, submitted documents, the DFC criteria, recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request to change his DFC.  He failed to show an error or injustice. 

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He takes exception to the AFPC/DPSID advisory, and claims there has been no objective analysis of the primary documentation he submitted as evidence:  the witness statement, the event narrative, and the event timeline and audio transcript.  Concerning the DPSID comment about his characterization of his deployed commander, he acknowledges “this is something I cannot prove.”  Concerning the DPSID comment about comparison with other awards from that period, he submits a number of award citations as a basis for comparison.  Finally, he believes DPSID incorrectly restated his petition in such a way that it appeared his primary substantiating document was his citation, while in fact he submitted additional documentation (Exhibit G). 


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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinions, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the applicant suggests upon rebuttal that there was no objective analysis of the primary documents he submitted, the Board is comfortable the responsible OPRs did a credible job of reviewing and evaluating the appropriate information prior to rendering their advisories.  Nothing that the applicant has provided is sufficient to establish an error or injustice requiring the Board to overturn the reasoned determination of the commander of record at the time of the award of his DFC.  As for the applicant’s assertion that animus played a role in his commander’s decision over 15 years ago to recommend him for the DFC for extraordinary achievement, rather than heroism, other than argument and conjecture, he has provided no evidence whatsoever that his commander acted inappropriately.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2014-01521 in Executive Session on 19 Feb 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 27 May 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 10 Jun 14. 
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 6 Aug 14. 
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Sep 14