RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02437

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Air Medal,  Sixth  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AM,  6  OLC)  awarded  for
meritorious achievement on 29 November 1971, be upgraded to a  Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC) for extraordinary achievement.

2.    He be awarded the DFC, First  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (DFC,  1  OLC),  for
extraordinary achievement on 1 December 1971.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It  is  unjust  that  he  was  not  awarded  DFCs  for   his   extraordinary
achievements on the 29 November 1971 and 1 December 1971 missions.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  affidavits  from  his  former
commanders, supervisor, Awards and Decorations Monitor, pilots with whom  he
flew the 29 November 1971 and 1 December 1971 missions, and  numerous  other
pilots with whom he flew; a Letter of Appreciation; proposed DFC and DFC,  1
OLC, citations, and a copy of the DFC citation awarded to the pilot  of  the
29 November 1971 mission.

The pilot of the 29  November  1971  mission  recommends  the  applicant  be
awarded the DFC and states that during the  mission  his  survival  depended
directly on the actions, communications and support of the applicant.   With
adverse weather conditions, severe ground-fire, operation  well  below  safe
altitude, and some very non-routine operations to complete the mission,  the
applicant played a pivotal role  in  helping  to  pinpoint  ground-fire  and
prevent midair collisions.  The pilot further states that  for  his  actions
on that date, he was recommended for the  Silver  Star  (SS);  however,  the
award was downgraded to a DFC.





The applicant’s former commander states that he recalls  signing/  approving
the applicant’s DFC recommendation, forwarding it through channels, and  can
only speculate on its disposition, since  numerous  citations  were  mislaid
during the closing months of the war.

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.

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 17 December 1963, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  and
entered active duty.

During the period 11 July 1969 through 18 August  1970,  the  applicant  was
assigned to Phu Cat Air Base (AB), Republic  of  Vietnam,  as  an  Inventory
Management Specialist.

During the period 13 September 1971 through 19 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.

On 9 August 1972, the applicant was awarded the AM, 6 OLC,  for  meritorious
achievement while participating in aerial flight on 29 November 1971.

On 31 January 1984, the applicant was relieved from active duty and  retired
effective 1 February 1984 in the grade of  master  sergeant.   His  DD  Form
214, Report of Separation or Discharge from the Armed Forces indicates  that
he was awarded a total of 11 Ams.

On 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 One Oak Leaf Cluster.

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 the applicant received the Air Medal (AM), with  Sixth  Oak  Leaf
Clusters, for his achievements on 29 November 1971 and is not  eligible  for
the DFC based on the same actions.  The applicant’s  request  for  award  of
the DFC, 1 OLC, was denied by the Air Force  Decoration  Board  because  his
actions did not meet the criteria  for  award  of  the  DFC.   Although  the
statement from the Awards and Decorations Officer indicates that  since  the
missions  were  classified,  the  unit’s  recommendations  were  delayed  or
denied, the officers who signed the affidavits each received their  DFCs  in
a timely manner and the applicant received his AMs in a timely manner.

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  DFC  for
extraordinary achievement is, at a minimum, the more appropriate award  with
respect to the applicant’s achievements on 29 November 1971.  On that  date,
the applicant’s aircraft was inside enemy territory almost  150  miles  from
his base, with no divert  fields  for  an  emergency  landing  or  available
search  and  rescue  forces.   In  addition,  marginal  weather   conditions
hampered the  location  of  constantly  moving  friendly  forces  and  enemy
forces.  Despite these adverse conditions and heavy volume of  anti-aircraft
fire, he  continued  to  seek  and  identify  all  friendly  locations  with
friendly Cambodian  positions  on  the  ground.   His  contributions  to  an
extremely fluid tactical situation was noted by the A-37 Squadron  Commander
as having been a vital part of the  team  and  greatly  contributed  to  the
overall success of the  mission.   Had  it  not  been  for  the  applicant’s
ability to accurately communicate in a  highly  stressful  combat  situation
and locate in  a  highly  precise  manner  the  constantly  moving  friendly
forces, the  lives  of  many  allied  forces  would  have  been  lost.   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  this
hazardous mission.  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 29 November  1971,  rather  than  the  Air  Medal,  Sixth  Oak  Leaf
Cluster.

      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 1 December 1971.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 Oct 01.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Nov 01, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-02437




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 29 November 1971, rather than the Air Medal, Sixth Oak Leaf
Cluster.

            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 1 December 1971.









JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency