RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00916
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: Yes
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased husband be awarded the Silver Star Medal (SSM) in lieu of
the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for Extraordinary Achievement on
20 June 1970, while over Cambodia.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to the then classified nature of the mission and the draw down of
United States forces in South East Asia (SEA), coupled with the
exigencies of the mission, appropriate recognition was precluded.
In support of her appeal, applicant’s counsel has provided a brief
that is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The decedent had served in Vietnam from 22 Nov 69 to 12 Nov 70 as a
Forward Air Controller (FAC) and had been recommended for the SSM for
a mission over Cambodia on 20 June 1970. The award of the SSM was
downgraded and he received the DFC instead. The decedent also
received the Air Medal (AM) with 11 Oak Leaf Clusters. He retired
from the Air Force on 31 March 1982.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends consideration be given to the request for
upgrade to the SSM. DPPPR states that many members of the decedent’s
organization, Rustic FAC did not receive recognition of specific
flights due to rapid mission requirements. They note also that
recognition is now being afforded to other members of the Rustic FAC
when necessary documentation is provided.
DPPPR’s evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, we are persuaded that the decedent’s actions on 20 June 1970,
justify awarding of the Silver Star Medal (SSM). The statements
provided by individuals who had first hand knowledge of the decedent’s
accomplishments support an upgrade of the DFC to the SSM. In
addition, this Board has considered several applications from members
of the Rustic FAC units and found that their true accomplishments were
not known at the time they were considered for awards because their
duties were classified. In view of the above findings, we recommend
approval of the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 1 July 1970, he was
awarded the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action against the
enemy of the United States on 20 June 1970, rather than the
Distinguished Flying Cross.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00916 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 7 May 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR BC-2003-00916
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 on 1 July 1970, he was
awarded the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action against the enemy of
the United States on 20 June 1970, rather than the Distinguished Flying
Cross.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00915
In support of his appeal, applicant’s counsel has provided a brief that is at Exhibit A. DPPPR states that many members of the applicant’s organization, Rustic FAC (Forward Air Controller) did not receive recognition of specific flights due to rapid mission requirements. In addition, this Board has considered several applications from members of the Rustic FAC units and found that their true accomplishments were not known at the time they were considered for awards because their duties...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01304
The former task force commander states that he strongly supports the request to award the applicant the SSM for his valorous actions in combat. The former unit Awards and Decorations officer states that subsequent to the mission, he was advised by Seventh Air Force personnel that SSM recommendations were not to be forwarded to them under any circumstances. The unit’s former Awards and Decorations Officer states the only SSM ever awarded to a member of their unit was the applicant’s FAC on...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2001-01303a
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...
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. Applicant’s complete submission, with...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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. As such, they believe he received sufficient recognition for his achievement during aerial flight. Of the Airborne Interpreters who participated in the Rustic Operation, the applicant is one of only two individuals who did not receive at...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02018
The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Neither the applicant nor Colonel M----, the former unit Awards and Decorations Officer, realized the original submission for the DFC had been downgraded to an AM, 6 OLC. In all submissions made by the Rustic FAC Association to date, extenuating circumstances have been detailed noting that then headquarters review and decision authorities...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02156
In 1974, a recommendation to award the applicant the BSM was considered and denied by the 13th Air Force. While the applicant contends he was not submitted for any decorations because of the classified nature of his duties, many intelligence personnel were recommended for decorations during the contested period in Vietnam, and many decorations were approved. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...