RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00124, Cse 2
INDEX CODE: 110.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Air Medal (AM) (basic) for 28 Feb 91 be upgraded to a
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During this mission he took extreme risks to locate a downed Marine
pilot who was later found dead. During the timeframe that the award
package was written squadron missions were compared to other squadron
missions as opposed to an objective standard.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The 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.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR states the applicant was requested on 22 Feb 02 to provide
documentation showing he was recommended for the DFC for the 28 Feb 91
mission. In response to the request the applicant states he was not
recommended for the DFC, but believes he should have been. He further
stated he tried to correct this in the last part of the nineties
through military channels, but he has not provided any documentation
to support this request. An individual can not recommend themselves
for a decoration or for an upgrade of a decoration previously awarded.
A request for an upgrade of a decoration must be made by the original
recommending official to the original approval authority within one
year of the final decision. The applicant has not provided any
documentation to show that the original recommending official
submitted a recommendation for DFC or his accomplishments met the
criteria for the DFC at that time. Without documentation to show he
was recommended for the DFC, a request for an upgrade of the AM to the
DFC or the applicant met the criteria for a DFC, they can not verify
his eligibility for the upgrade. Based on the information provided,
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 reiterated
statements made on his application. Also, the applicant submitted
previously received documentation to support his request for upgrade
of his AM to a DFC (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an 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. The applicant was awarded the AM for his actions
on 28 Feb 91; however, no evidence has been presented which has shown
to our satisfaction that the applicant was recommended for a DFC.
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 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 Docket Number 02-
00124 in Executive Session on July 2, 2002, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 May 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 31 May 02.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
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...
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).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01288 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Medal with 4th Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 4OLC) awarded for accomplishments on 10 Oct 44 be upgraded to a Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00420
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In view of his completion of a total of 37 combat missions and based on the Eighth Air Force established policy of awarding an AM upon the completion of every five heavy bomber missions and awarding a DFC upon the completion of 35 combat missions, he should be awarded the DFC and an additional AM. In view of the above, and since the applicant never received a DFC for his completion of a combat...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00453
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00453 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 August 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, First Oak Leaf Cluster (DFC, 1 OLC) and the Air Medal, Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster (AM, 5 OLC). The DFC was established...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00510
He was never awarded an additional AM for his 26th through 30th combat missions In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the former 67th Deputy Squadron Navigator recommending him for award of the DFC and an additional oak leaf cluster to the AM, and a list of his combat missions. The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July 1926 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. ...
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his Individual Flight Records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s available military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. His Individual Flight Records show that he...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02178
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02178 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 January 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His mission on 26 September 1944, be considered a combat mission and he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03583
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03583 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 12 FEBRUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Medal (AM) awarded on 17 Aug 2004 for heroism be upgraded to the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor (DFC w/V). The Chief of Staff of the Air Force strongly believed another...