RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02436

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the  Distinguished  Flying  Cross  (DFC)  with  Two  Oak  Leaf
Clusters, for extraordinary  achievements  on  25  August  1972,  17 January
1972, and 24 February 1972.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

All of the Airborne Interpreters received either an end of tour  DFC  and/or
a DFC based on a specific mission.

The applicant states that when he  had  the  error  checked  into  upon  his
arrival at Loring AFB, ME, he was told that his records had been lost.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  affidavits  from  his  former
commanders, supervisor, Awards and Decorations Monitor, pilots with whom  he
flew the 25 August 1972, 17 January 1972,  and  24 February  1972  missions,
and numerous other pilots with whom he flew; and proposed DFC citations.

The pilot of the 25 August 1972 mission recommends the applicant be  awarded
the DFC  and  states  that  during  the  mission  the  applicant  played  an
extraordinary role in pre-planning, coordinating and  ensuring  the  success
of reconnaissance and air strikes.  Because  of  the  applicant’s  excellent
teamwork, advance coordination and logical recommendations, they  were  able
to get target approval for an  unusually  high  number  of  strike  aircraft
(i.e., three separate flights of fighters, including one with rare loads  of
2,000-pound bombs) within 200 meters of friendly forces.  The  pilot  states
that he  would  not  have  been  able  to  do  so  without  the  applicant’s
exceptional ability to communicate with the  ground  commanders  and  filter
only the most pertinent information to him.  The applicant also assumed  the
role of reconnaissance observer in addition  to  his  other  roles  to  find
enemy boats en route to reinforce the enemy positions.


The applicant’s former commander states that he recalls  signing/  approving
the applicant’s DFC recommendation, forwarding it through channels, and  can
only assume that it was lost in channels.

The pilot of  the  17 January  1972  mission  recommends  the  applicant  be
awarded the DFC, 1 OLC, and states during the mission, the applicant was  on
the radio with both the ground commander and 7th Air Force,  while  he  [the
pilot] was busy locating the enemy position.   The  applicant  requested  an
airstrike from 7th  Air  Force,  coordinated  the  attack  with  the  ground
commander, and as a result the enemy attack was halted.

The pilot of the  24 February  1972  mission  recommends  the  applicant  be
awarded the DFC, 2 OLC, and states that during the  mission,  the  applicant
was in constant communication with the ground commanders, updating him  [the
pilot] on their comments  regarding  the  results  of  the  air  strike  and
watching for ground fire.

The former Awards and Decorations Monitor for Rustic Operations states  that
he was informed on several occasions by  7th  Air  Force  personnel  that  a
number of issues could result in  their  unit’s  submissions  being  delayed
and/or possibly declined due to the  classified  status  of  their  mission.
Furthermore,  when  forwarding  award  submissions,  the  scope   of   their
mission’s security precluded the inclusion of pertinent details and  impeded
timely  recognition  in   some   instances.    In   addition,   the   unique
circumstances in which the Rustic operation  was  conducted  throughout  its
duration involved numerous chains  of  command  which  contributed  to  some
inconsistencies  and   in   some   instances,   omissions   of   appropriate
recognition.  Had it been possible to disclose, there  were  unique  aspects
related to their mission in  Cambodia  that  would  have  been  contributing
factors weighing in favor of greater  consideration  given  to  approval  of
awards and decorations (i.e., only one airport available, lack  of  adequate
navigation aids, adverse weather conditions, and  extensive,  ever  changing
Rules of Engagement).

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 June 1970, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years and entered active duty.

During the period 16 September 1971 through 15 July 1972, the applicant  was
assigned to Ubon Republic of Thailand Air Force Board (RTAFB),  Thailand  as
an Airborne Linguist/Interpreter Specialist (Observer & Interpreter)  aboard
OV-10 aircraft providing direct support for Forward  Air  Controllers  (FAC)
during Operation Rustic over Cambodia.  He was awarded a total of 9 Ams.

On 22 February 1974, the applicant was released from active duty.

On 12 November 1999 and 7 September 2000, the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
Personnel Council (SAFPC) Air Force Decoration Board considered  and  denied
applicant’s request for award of the DFC, with Two Oak Leaf Clusters.

The DFC was established by Congress  on  2 July  1926  and  is  awarded  for
heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in  aerial  flight.
The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary  action
above and beyond the call of duty.

The AM is awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement while  participating
in aerial flight.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application  be  denied.   AFPC/DPPPR  states,  in
part, that none of the individuals providing affidavits in  support  of  the
applicant’s request are listed on his  performance  report  rendered  during
the period in  question.  While  the  applicant  claims  that  all  aircraft
interpreters received a DFC  as  an  end-of-tour  decoration  and/or  for  a
specific mission, he did not provide any substantiating documentation.   The
individual  submitting  the  applicant’s   package   through   Congressional
channels for reconsideration in 2000 was not assigned to  Thailand,  but  in
Vietnam, and did not know the applicant or have firsthand knowledge  of  his
accomplishments.  The individuals recommending the applicant  indicate  that
they could not have performed their missions without his ability to  act  as
an interpreter; however, that was his job.  In addition,  the  proposed  DFC
citations are  almost  identical  in  verbiage  and  do  not  show  that  he
distinguished himself by heroism or extraordinary achievement.  There is  no
doubt that he performed his duties in an  outstanding  manner  and  received
the nine AMs.  As such, they believe he received sufficient recognition  for
his achievement during aerial flight.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A representative of the Rustic FAC Association states  that  during  the  25
August  1972  mission,  the  applicant  gathered  the   complex   array   of
information and using  his  excellent  linguistic  skills,  coordinated  the
location and status of an ever-changing  situation  as  it  evolved  on  the
ground.  Existing friendly casualties, together  with  concerns  for  allied
logistics and escape options  for  allied  forces  had  reached  a  grievous
condition. The applicant’s demonstrated heroism, courage under intense anti-
aircraft fire, superior  airmanship  incorporating  the  use  of  a  foreign
language,  excellent  map  reading  skills,   total   positional   awareness
throughout a sustained time  period  in  marginal  weather  conditions,  and
unwavering devotion to duty in  the  face  of  grave  personal  danger  were
instrumental  in  accomplishing  the  referenced  hazardous  missions.   The
applicant volunteered to bear the same risks and  dangers  that  the  pilots
did, and provided the skills  that  allowed  the  pilots  to  perform  their
missions.  Of the Airborne  Interpreters  who  participated  in  the  Rustic
Operation, the applicant is one of only two individuals who did not  receive
at least one DFC.  The lives of Cambodians were saved by his good  work  and
it is unjust to deprive him of the recognition he deserves.

In further support of the appeal, documentation regarding the award of  DFCs
to fellow enlisted  Airborne  Interpreters  serving  in  Southeast  Asia  is
provided.

The  Rustic  FAC  Association  representative’s  complete   response,   with
attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
criteria for awarding the DFC, we believe the  applicant’s  actions  clearly
met the extraordinary achievement requirement for award  of  the  DFC.   The
former pilots that flew the subject missions  with  the  applicant  indicate
that they would not have been able to complete  the  subject  missions,  for
which they received DFCs, without the  applicant’s  exceptional  ability  to
remain in constant contact with the ground commanders, assume  the  role  of
reconnaissance observer, call-in airstrikes, and assist  in  spotting  enemy
aircraft.  The evidence presented to this Board clearly  substantiates  that
the applicant’s performance during these missions went  beyond  that  of  an
interpreter.  More importantly, in his rebuttal  to  the  advisory  opinion,
the applicant has provided documentation regarding  the  award  of  DFCs  to
fellow  enlisted  Airborne  Interpreters  serving  in  Southeast  Asia  that
performed  the  same  duties  and  extraordinary  achievements  as  he  did.
Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to  the  extent
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:

      a.    He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for  extraordinary
achievement,    while    participating    in    aerial    flight    as     a
Linguist/Interrogator Specialist (Observer  and  Interpreter)  in  Southeast
Asia on 17 January 1972.

      b.    He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross,  with  the  First
Oak Leaf Cluster, for  extraordinary  achievement,  while  participating  in
aerial  flight  as  a   Linguist/Interrogator   Specialist   (Observer   and
Interpreter) in Southeast Asia on 24 February 1972.

      c.    He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, with  the  Second
Oak Leaf Cluster, for  extraordinary  achievement,  while  participating  in
aerial  flight  as  a   Linguist/Interrogator   Specialist   (Observer   and
Interpreter) in Southeast Asia on 25 August 1972.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 14 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Walter J. Hosey, Member
                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member

 The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 1 Oct 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Oct 01.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Nov 01, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-02436




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a.   He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for
extraordinary achievement, while participating in aerial flight as a
Linguist/Interrogator Specialist (Observer and Interpreter) in Southeast
Asia on 17 January 1972.

            b.   He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, with the
First Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while participating
in aerial flight as a Linguist/Interrogator Specialist (Observer and
Interpreter) in Southeast Asia on 24 February 1972.

            c.   He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, with the
Second Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while participating
in aerial flight as a Linguist/Interrogator Specialist (Observer and
Interpreter) in Southeast Asia on 25 August 1972.









JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency