4
4
,
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02928 FEB 5 yjgg
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT :
He be awarded the Silver Star (SS) , the Distinguished Flying
Cross (DFC), and the Air Medal, 19 Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 19 O K ) .
APPLICANT CONTEN DS THAT:
Although he was told by the commander that he would receive the
DFC and SS, he was medically evacuated out of the area and the
awards never followed him to his next destination. As a result,
he is the only member of the squadron that did not receive the
DFC. He was awarded the AM, 19 OLC, as indicated on his 1971
Airman Performance Report (APR) ; however, the award was never
listed on his DD Form 214,
The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 May 1965, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force
for a period of 4 years.
The applicant served in Vietnam during the period 26 February
1965 to 8 November 1965,
The applicant was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal;
the Vietnam Service Medal, with 3 bronze service stars; and the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, with Palm device.
The applicant was retired for length of service on 1 October 1973
in the grade of master sergeant.
AIR FORC E EVALUATIO N:
The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPRA, reviewed this
application and states the following:
a. There is no indication the applicant was ever
recommended for the SS or DFC. Furthermore, the applicant has
not attached a recommendation from a supervisor, commander or
person with first-hand knowledge of his accomplishments/actions.
Although the applicant provided a statement from his [then]
commander [in Vietnam] , there is no recommendation for a
decoration, and the only incident highlighted describes the
applicant assisting an injured Vietnamese officer and ensuring he
got to a hospital. The DFC is based on aerial achievement, and
the SS is awarded for gallantry in action, and his actions of
8 November 1965 do not meet these criteria.
b. The applicant's records only contain orders for award of
the Air Medal with 16 Oak Leaf Clusters (AM, 16 OLC). There is
no documentation to show that he received more than 16 Oak Leaf
Clusters, and he did not furnish any documentation to support
this claim.
Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant's requests.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C .
VIEW OF AIR FORCE E VALUAT ION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that
he could care less about the AM, 19 OLC. However, in regard to
the DFC and SS, he states that upon speaking with his former
commander regarding a claim with the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) , the commander asked him if he had received his DFC
and SS.
The applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
THE BOARD CONC LUDES THA T:
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 probable 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 and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
2
.
THE BOAR D DETERMIN ES THA T:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in
Executive Session on 17 December 1998, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, 11, Member
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 97,
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 4
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Jan
w/atchs .
Records .
Dec 97.
98.
d+lAJ&
VAUGH E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01826
In support of his request, the applicant submits his personal statement, Congressional correspondence, recommendations from his former commander/Director of Combat Operations Fifth Air Force, narrative recommendations, proposed citations, a statement from his wingman on the 28 June 1952 mission, extracts from his personal copies of his military records to include flight records, mission reports, a copy of the only other DSC awarded in the wing, translated Russian mission reports for...
The pilot of the 1 December 1971 mission recommends the applicant be awarded the DFC, 1 OLC, and states that due to the applicant’s quick and accurate interpretation of the Cambodian Ground Commander’s requests during the mission, they were able to place seven separate sets of fighters in and around Kampong Thma as close as 100 meters of the friendly forces, preventing the overrun of the city and saving the lives of many friendly Cambodian troops. Applicant’s complete submission, with...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02073
The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel states, among other things, that but for the applicant’s actions on 5 June 1944, the mission’s command pilot would have been in severe shock and unconscious in a matter of minutes and incapable of the aircraft flight maneuvers for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor. Based on the established 8th Air Force policy of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02396
He agrees with the recommendation of the Air Force, if his citation does not verify his decision was beyond the call of duty neither the AM or DFC is appropriate (Exhibit E). Congressman Shimkus, in a letter dated 18 December 2006, offers his support in the applicant’s request for an upgrade of AM w/4 OLCs (Exhibit F). On 10 January 2007, the Board staff requested the applicant to provide clarification regarding his request for an upgrade of his AM w/OLCs (Exhibit G).
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's available military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and submitted previously received documentation to support his request for...
AF | BCMR | CY1997 | BC 1997 01084 1
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1997-01084 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Medal, Fourth and Fifth Oak Leaf Clusters (AM, 4th and 5th OLCs) and the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). For an accounting of the facts and circumstances...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00935
Further without evidence to verify the applicant was recommended for the SS his request could not be favorably considered. His records do not reflect that he was recommended for, or awarded the SS. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-00325 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 06, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00510
He was never awarded an additional AM for his 26th through 30th combat missions In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the former 67th Deputy Squadron Navigator recommending him for award of the DFC and an additional oak leaf cluster to the AM, and a list of his combat missions. The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July 1926 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. ...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office reviewed the additional documentation and provided another advisory opinion to the Board recommending denial of the application (Exhibit F). Awarded the fourth oak leaf cluster for 19 Jul70, when he already has received a decoration for that date, would be more than dual recognition, it would be a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02340
The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). The OER for the following period, 20 Aug 68 - 14 Aug 69, reported the member had been awarded the DFC for heroism, as well as AMs with 1- 7OLCs. Neither the applicant’s submission nor her...