ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01598
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor (MOH).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should be awarded the MOH based on his heroic actions on 10 September
1972, when he walked through an exploding munitions dump to save injured
South Vietnamese airmen.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 11 January 2001, the Board considered applicant’s request that his
records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Small Arms Expert
Marksmanship Ribbon. The Board found insufficient evidence of a probable
error or injustice and denied the application. A complete copy of the
Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit E.
In a letter to his Congressman, dated 28 April 2001, the applicant
requested that he be awarded the MOH (Exhibit F).
The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President, in the name of Congress, to
a person who distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry
and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of
duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States. The
deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self sacrifice so
conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and
must have involved the risk of life.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the
application and states that there is no documentation to indicate that the
applicant was ever recommended for the MOH, only that he had been
nominated. However, there is no indication as to who nominated him for the
award, or why. Allegations are made that the events of 10 September 1972
at Bien Hoa Air Base are no longer available, but there is no mention of
what events are no longer available. Furthermore, there is no mention of
exactly what the applicant was supposed to have done to earn the MOH, other
than a vague reference to his walking through a bomb dump looking for
survivors. They can find no office within the Air Force that has any
knowledge of the applicant being recommended for the MOH. Therefore, they
cannot verify his eligibility for the award and recommend denial of his
request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he went
beyond the call of duty in entering the exploding bomb dump with little
regard for his own life to save South Vietnamese airmen. When the bomb
dump exploded, he did not go through a rule book and say that he did not
have to look for survivors, but realized the injured were human beings and
he could not abandon them.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. It should be noted that this
Board does not have the authority to award the applicant the MOH. We can,
however, if the evidence warrants, recommend he be considered for the MOH.
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted. The office
of primary responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions
and we agree with its opinion and recommendation. The personal sacrifice
the applicant endured for his country is noted and our decision in no way
diminishes the high regard we have for his service; however, insufficient
documentary evidence has been presented to warrant recommending him for the
Medal of Honor. We, therefore, adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that
he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the additional 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 21 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 16 Apr 93, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, Sen Miller, dated 3 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jun 01.
Exhibit H. Letter, Sen Miller, dated 1 Jul 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 30 Jul 01.
Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 01.
Exhibit K. Letter, C.Burnham, PhD, dated 12 Aug 01,
w/atchs.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1986-01756-2
He cites another serviceman who received the MOH for heroic service in attempting to rescue a fellow officer from a flaming aircraft in 1920. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request be denied. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, the Board denied the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01230
On 21 November 2001, the Board considered applicant’s request to be awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on 10 September 1972. There is no documentation in applicant’s military records to indicate that he was recommended for, or awarded, any decoration for heroism. Furthermore, there is no documentation in applicant’s military records, nor has he provided any, to indicate that he was recommended for, or awarded, any decoration for heroism.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-01922
The DD Form 256AF, Honorable Discharge Certificate, which is only issued as an original document to the individual concerned, and the AF Form 626, Request and Authorization for Temporary Duty Travel of Military Personnel, are not filed in the personnel record. The applicant states he saved a communication center from being completely sabotaged and was recommended for award of the MOH. After a review of the applicant’s record and provided documentation, AFPC/DPPPR was unable to verify the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02254
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded the PH since he was wounded in Vietnam. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that they could not find any support for award of the PH. Should the applicant provide evidence that he was injured as a direct result of enemy action, the Board will...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02175
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02175 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Medal of Honor (MOH) in lieu of the Silver Star (First Oak Leaf Cluster) (SS (1OLC)) he received for his actions on 11 September 1967. He was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action on 11 September 1967. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 03019
The applicant requests his SS be upgraded to the MOH; however, the letter provided requests the applicant be reconsidered for the MOH. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 10 Jan 14, the applicant states his Form 5, Pilot Individual Flight Record, shows he flew three combat missions on 25 Jun 64. Exhibit N. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jun 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC 2002 01403
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-01403 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His award of the Silver Star (SS) be upgraded to the Medal of Honor (MoH) for his actions on 26 Nov 43. According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 11 Jan 44, he was wounded in action. A review of the applicants records revealed that he should have been awarded the Prisoner of War Medal (PWM),...
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he was awarded the National Safety Council’s President’s Medal in Nov 55 by the general officer for whom he worked, he was told that he would receive the Soldier’s Medal (the Airman’s Medal was not established until 1960). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards & Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03484
The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 23 April 2004 for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR states there is no evidence in the applicant's record to substantiate that the injury he received was a direct result of enemy action. Based on the information provided, DPPPR recommends denying the applicant's request. We noted the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of his case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their...