Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1988-02973A
Original file (BC-1988-02973A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                                 ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1988-02973
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A similar appeal was considered and  rejected  as  untimely  by  the  Board.
(See the Record of Proceedings,  dated  30  Jan  89,  with  attachments,  at
Exhibit E).

In his most recent submission, he requests that he be awarded  the  DFC  for
flying 140 combat missions during the Southeast Asia Conflict.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  copies  of  documentation
submitted with his initial  appeal,  an  extract  of  his  Officer  Military
Record (AF Form 11), and five news clippings regarding individuals who  have
received awards after the fact.

His complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In earlier findings in this case pertaining to  applicant’s  request  to
be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), the Board  determined  that
the application was not timely filed  and  that  it  would  not  be  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.   After  reviewing
the evidence previously considered and the  applicant’s  recent  submission,
we have determined that it would be in the interest of justice to waive  the
failure to timely file and to resolve this case on its merit.

2.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case,  including  the
letters  of  recommendation  provided  by  his  former  commanders  and  the
newspaper articles.  The Board noted the former  commanders  indicated  that
it was their policy to award the DFC upon completion of 100 or  more  combat
missions.  However, no documentary evidence has been presented  to  indicate
that a recommendation for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC)  was
officially   submitted.    In   the   absence   of   documentary    evidence
substantiating that the applicant was recommended for  the  requested  award
and that such a recommendation was approved, we do  not  find  the  evidence
provided establishes that the applicant has been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country  is
noted and our decision in no way diminishes the high regard we have for  his
service.   In  view  of  the  above,  we  agree   with   the   opinion   and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an
error or an injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request  for  award  of
the DFC is not favorably considered.

3.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  BC-1988-02973
in Executive Session on 17 December 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 21 June 1988,
                with Exhibits.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 28 July 2003, with
                attachments.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-02973-2

    Original file (BC-1998-02973-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    (See the Record of Proceedings, dated 30 Jan 89, with attachments, at Exhibit G). (See the Addendum to the Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Jan 04, with attachments, at Exhibit H). _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202657

    Original file (0202657.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-01967A

    Original file (BC-1997-01967A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 17 Feb 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the subject applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), and the China Service Medal (see AFBCMR 97-01967), with Exhibits A through D). In view of the above, and in recognition of the applicant’s service to the Nation, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s records be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9701967A

    Original file (9701967A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 17 Feb 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the subject applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), and the China Service Medal (see AFBCMR 97-01967), with Exhibits A through D). In view of the above, and in recognition of the applicant’s service to the Nation, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s records be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9701967

    Original file (9701967.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 17 Feb 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the subject applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), and the China Service Medal (see AFBCMR 97-01967), with Exhibits A through D). In view of the above, and in recognition of the applicant’s service to the Nation, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s records be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202652

    Original file (0202652.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2002 | 0202656

    Original file (0202656.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded the DFC for his actions on 15 March 1971 as an Airborne Interpreter; however, due to the then classified nature of the mission and the drawn down of United States forces in Southeast Asia, he was not. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01259

    Original file (BC-2003-01259.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01259 INDEX CODE: 107.00; 131.09; COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) be added to his Air Medal (AM) or he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), and his rank at separation be changed to Captain. Evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2001-01303a

    Original file (BC-2001-01303a.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2001-01303 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: HAROLD G. MERCER XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) awarded for actions on 23 September 1970, be upgraded to the Silver Star Medal (SSM). In addition, this Board has considered several applications from members of the Rustic...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03307

    Original file (BC-2003-03307.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Medal (AM) that was awarded to him on 4 November 2002 by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) is not the appropriate decoration for his actions. The control cables were severed, and the aircraft could not be landed safely without the cables controlling the flaps. DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in flight.