RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00008
INDEX CODE: 107.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC)
instead of the Air Medal, for the period 10 March 1954 through 15 August
1954. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
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 advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for
review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant’s response to the advisory
opinion is at Exhibit E.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to
warrant corrective action. The facts and opinions stated in the advisory
opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been
adequately rebutted by applicant. Absent persuasive evidence applicant was
denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed,
or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the
existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only
be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was
not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Ms. Margaret A. Zook, and Mr.
Clarence D. Long III considered this application on 10 May 2000 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the
governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E. Applicant’s Response
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE SAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 31
January 2000
FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPPR
550 C Street West Ste 12
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4714
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records (DD Form 149)
REQUESTED ACTION. Applicant requests his Air Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf
Cluster, for the period 10 Mar 54-15 Aug 54, be upgraded to the
Distinguished Flying Cross.
BASIS FOR REQUEST. Applicant did not provide any justification to
substantiate his claim.
FACTS.
a. Applicant served on Active Duty from 15 Oct 47-31 Oct 67.
During his 13 Dec
51-12 Dec 54 enlistment, he was stationed in England for 11 months and 12
days. His basic Air Medal was awarded for the period 30 Oct 52-16 Dec 62.
b. Applicant's crewmembers all received recognition for their
aerial achievements for the period 10 Mar 54-15 Aug 54.
DISCUSSION. The applicant was originally recommended for the
Distinguished Flying Cross, but Headquarters, Strategic Air Command,
stated, "...an Air Medal would be more in accord with the cited action and
is commensurate with awards previously approved for similar duty"
(Attachment 1). The applicant has not provided any additional
justification showing he performed a heroic act or other extraordinary
achievement in aerial flight during the period 10 Mar 54-15 Aug 54.
RECOMMENDATION. We recommend disapproval of the applicant's request
for upgrade of his Air Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster to the Distinguished
Flying Cross.
MICHAEL J. MALONE, Lt Col, USAF
Chief, Recognition Programs Branch
Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Div
Attachment:
Recommendation for DFC, 16 Sep 54 w/Ind
cc: SAF/MIBR
During the period of 7 Oct 44 through 9 Apr 45, the applicant completed 30 operational missions. The applicant did not respond to DPPR’s letter requesting a copy of his Report of Separation. Without any additional documentation to support his request, DPPPR cannot verify the applicant’s eligibility for the DFC; therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit B).
However, the evidence provided has established to our satisfaction that the applicant‘s service during the period in question did warrant recognition by award of the Air Medal and that the recommendation for this award was submitted and lost. RECOMMENDATION. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross for 15 Jul45 and the Air Medal for Mar 45-Jul45 and Jun 45-Sep 45.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states that on 25 May 01, they requested the applicant provide a copy of the citations to the basic DFC and all the Air Medals. On 27 Jul 01, DPPPR forwarded the case to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for determination of the applicant's...
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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). (2) Applicant has not submitted any documentation to substantiate his claim that he re- submitted a recommendation for the Air Medal or a request for reconsideration to upgrade the Aerial Achievement Medal to the Air Medal, or any responses to such submissions. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for his Aerial...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). (2) Applicant has not submitted any documentation to substantiate his claim that he re- submitted a recommendation for the Air Medal or a request for reconsideration to upgrade the Aerial Achievement Medal to the Air Medal, or any responses to such submissions. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for his Aerial...
Given the fact that this document was issued within a relatively short period of time following his separation, we must conclude that responsible officials had access to the applicant’s military records and determined that the applicant had been awarded the GCM. No documentary evidence has been presented to indicate that a recommendation for award of the DFC was officially submitted. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
He stated that the DFC was awarded for completion of 35 combat flight missions. Therefore, the basis for the applicant’s claim that all other crew members of the 2 Oct 44 combat flight mission received the DFC is unsubstantiated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration through his...
The AFBCMR previously considered and denied the applicant I s request that his records be corrected to reflect the addition of an Oak Leaf Cluster to the AM and DFC (see AFBCMR 80- 00947, with Exhibits A through C) . The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant I s requests and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the applicant's requests be denied (Exhibit E). Concerning his request for award of the China War Memorial Medal, the facts and opinions stated in...
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...