RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01303
INDEX CODE: 107.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), awarded for actions on 23 Sep
70, be upgraded to the Silver Star Medal (SSM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was recommended for the SSM, but it was erroneously downgraded to a
DFC by administrative personnel at the support squadron because of a
misunderstanding about the criteria for SSM.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty from 19 Oct 66 - 10 Feb 72. He
served in Viet Nam from 15 May 70 - 7 Mar 71. He was awarded the Air
Medal (AM) with 8 Oak Leaf Clusters and the DFC with 2 Oak Leaf
Clusters for his aerial achievements.
He received the basic DFC for actions on 23 Sep 70, the first oak leaf
cluster for actions on 16 Dec 70, and he received the second oak leaf
cluster for actions on 16 Sep 70.
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant furnished a copy of his basic DFC citation and
a certificate for the first through eighth oak leaf clusters to the
AM. On 27 Jul 01, DPPPR forwarded the case to the Secretary of the
Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for determination of the
applicant's request for upgrade of his DFC to SSM. The SAFPC denied
the request on 7 Aug 01. Further there is no indication in the
applicant's records that he was recommended for the SSM, and he has
not provided any supporting documentation to substantiate his claim.
The applicant has not provided any documentation that the SSM was
downgraded to a DFC. DPPPR recommends denying the applicant's
request.
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 states that Col L.
signed his OER dated 24 Jan thru 6 Jan 70. He also states the DFC was
submitted as a SS, but a young Lt., who was the DECS officer, informed
them that in order for the action to be submitted for a SS the
aircraft had to have been hit or the pilot wounded. The Lt. submitted
the SS as a DFC because neither the plane nor the pilot was hit or
wounded. He did not find about the error until he attended the All
FAC Reunion in 2000.
Applicant's complete response 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 timely filed.
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 opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force and adopt their rationale 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. We believe it should be pointed out that
the applicant's decorated service and sacrifice for his country has
not gone unnoticed. Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been
presented which has shown to our satisfaction that the applicant met
the established criteria to upgrade his DFC to a SSM. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
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 4 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. William Edwards, Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 May 01, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 14 Aug 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Aug 01.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02528 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He and his crew be awarded an unspecified decoration for destroying enemy jet fighters during a bombing mission from Italy to Berlin, Germany, on 24 Mar 45. On 12 Apr 96, a Congressional representative requested that the applicant and...
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-2005-01524
During World War II, the Far East Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 500 combat hours and an AM was awarded upon the completion of 100 combat hours. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for the DFC be denied and states, in part, that the applicant did not provide a letter of recommendation to verify his entitlement to the DFC. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02015
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and additional campaign credit for the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal be denied. DPPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC for actions on 10 October 1944; additional campaign credit for the Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal; and, award of the Air Medal with fourth oak leaf cluster for the period 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00916
DPPPR states that many members of the decedent’s organization, Rustic FAC did not receive recognition of specific flights due to rapid mission requirements. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the decedent’s actions on 20 June 1970, justify awarding of the Silver Star Medal (SSM). Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03 JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2003-00916 MEMORANDUM...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03133
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03133 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NO XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late father’s records be corrected to reflect the award of the Silver Star Medal (SSM). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03536
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03536 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His original recommendation for award of the Silver Star (SS) for his actions on 19 May 68 be approved. The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02470
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02470 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 FEB 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he received the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), and a Silver Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal (AM w/1 SOLC). A thorough review of the applicant’s...