RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01429
INDEX NUMBER: 107.00
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for previously
classified missions flown from 22 Aug 62 through 29 Oct 62.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A fellow crewmember submitted an application for the entire crew to be
awarded the DFC for missions flown in support of OPERATION SPEEDLIGHT
DELTA in 1962. The application was approved only for that crewmember
and the crewmember was advised that each of the other crewmembers
should submit their own application with the appropriate information.
Since that time, another crewmember has followed this guidance and
submitted and had his application approved. The applicant is now
submitting his application in accordance with this guidance.
In support of his application, the applicant provided 22 documents,
including a copy of the application that requested award of the DFC to
all members of the crew that flew missions in support of OPERATION
SPEEDLIGHT DELTA, a copy of the letter notifying the crewmember of the
approval of his award of the DFC, and documents verifying his status as
co-pilot on flights flown in support of OPERATION SPEEDLIGHT DELTA.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty from 12 May 1955 through 30 June
1985 and retired in the grade of colonel.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR states that since they have no authority to evaluate
recommendations for decorations, they recommend that the AFBCMR
evaluate the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and decide if the
applicant’s submission warrants award of the DFC.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant’s response to the evaluation by AFPC/DPPPR included a
summary of the sequence of events that led him to submit his
application for award of the DFC. He also provided a copy of a AFBCMR
letter, dated 28 Mar 01, informing the navigator on the flights flown
in support of OPERATION SPEEDLIGHT DELTA of the Board’s approval of his
request for award of the DFC.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_______________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Based on the award of the DFC to two other crewmembers, AFPC/DPPPR was
asked to provide an additional evaluation of the applicant’s request.
AFPC/DPPPR states that their original advisory accurately reflects the
functions and responsibilities of their office albeit inconsistent with
their earlier evaluation.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response, the applicant again points out that the DFC was
awarded to two of his fellow crewmembers. He states that his request
is, based on the accomplishments and achievements described in the
recommendation, which were the same for all crewmembers, that the Board
approve his request for the DFC.
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. The Board notes that it has
previously awarded the DFC to the pilot and one other crewmember for
their activities during “Operation Speed Light Delta.” We also note
that the original application submitted by the pilot was for award of
the DFC to his entire crew. In his application, the pilot stated,
“Each crew member deserves the same recognition as I, and I
respectfully request that the Board correct each of their records to
reflect the award of the DFC….” In approving his DFC, the Board
stipulated that each crewmember would have to apply individually, as
the applicant has done. The applicant’s records well establish that he
performed an integral role as copilot of the modified JKC-135 during
this mission and is deserving of award of the DFC. In view of the
above, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as
indicated below.
_______________________________________________________________
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 awarded the
Distinguished Flying Cross for the following achievement:
“Applicant distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious
conduct in the performance of outstanding service to the United States
while assigned to the 914th Air Refueling Squadron, 97th Bomb Wing,
Strategic Air Command, Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas, during the
period 23 August 1962 to 29 October 1962. While serving on
temporary duty at Brize Norton Air Base, United Kingdom, during this
period, he flew a specially modified JKC-135 aircraft over hostile
territory on 21 missions of vital national importance to the United
States. Flying an unescorted, unarmed, and unprotected aircraft deep
into Soviet airspace, in daylight, during a period of unprecedented
Cold War tensions, he obtained critical intelligence regarding 20
Soviet nuclear detonations in the atmosphere. Using defensive tactics
that remain classified, he flew a total of 255 hours, often orbiting
for hours less than 20 miles from ground zero. The extraordinary
skill, patriotism and heroism he exhibited in the face of grave
personal danger enabled the United States to obtain intelligence of
incalculable value and reflects great credit upon himself and the
United States Air Force.”
_______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 6 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 30 Jul 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 1 Nov 01.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 01.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-01429
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that he was awarded
the Distinguished Flying Cross for the following achievement:
“He distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious
conduct in the performance of outstanding service to the United
States while assigned to the 914th Air Refueling Squadron, 97th
Bomb Wing, Strategic Air Command, Blytheville Air Force Base,
Arkansas, during the period 23 August 1962 to 29 October
1962. While serving on temporary duty at Brize Norton Air Base,
United Kingdom, during this period, he flew a specially modified
JKC-135 aircraft over hostile territory on 21 missions of vital
national importance to the United States. Flying an unescorted,
unarmed, and unprotected aircraft deep into Soviet airspace, in
daylight, during a period of unprecedented Cold War tensions, he
obtained critical intelligence regarding 20 Soviet nuclear
detonations in the atmosphere. Using defensive tactics that remain
classified, he flew a total of 255 hours, often orbiting for hours
less than 20 miles from ground zero. The extraordinary skill,
patriotism and heroism he exhibited in the face of grave personal
danger enabled the United States to obtain intelligence of
incalculable value and reflects great credit upon himself and the
United States Air Force.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Edward H. Parker and Mr. Robert S. Boyd considered this application on March 28, 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPPR, dated March 12, 2001, W/Atch AFBCMR 01-00558 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02836
If one member of a crew receives the DFC all members should. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that in 1944 he and others were selected to be lead crew and would receive the DFC upon completion of 30 missions. He states that AFPC has erred in their recommendation and that he should be granted the medal as well as the recognition of a certificate.
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...
He also completed three missions as a B-17F navigator. During World War II, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 30 combat flight missions and an AM was awarded upon the completion of five missions. In 1944, the 8th Air Force required completion of 30 combat flight missions; however, the applicant did not complete 30 missions.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although the 1 October 1970 mission may have been classified at the time, the proposed citation is entirely unclassified, except for identying the enemy territory as Combodia, and was unclassified at that time. AFPC/DPPPR does not believe sufficient justification has been provided to show that the applicant was not recommended for...
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).
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00357 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM). ...
AFPC/DPPPR does not believe sufficient justification has been provided to show that the applicant was not recommended for the DFC because of the classified nature of his mission. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A representative of the Rustic FAC Association states that a number of interpreters having similar duties were awarded the DFC based on...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2001-03377
All of the other crewmembers, except for him, have received the DFC for the completion of 30 combat missions. The 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 16 May 2003 for review and response within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...