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).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 4 October 2001, the Board considered applicant’s request to upgrade the
DFC to the SSM. The Board found insufficient evidence of an error or
injustice and denied the application. For an accounting of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale for the
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.
On 20 May 2003, the Board favorably considered the requests of two former
Rustics to upgrade their DFCs to SSMs.
In a letter, dated 27 February 2004, the applicant’s counsel requests
reconsideration of the application, citing the two favorably considered
AFBCMR cases, and providing additional documentation. Counsel’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or an injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
criteria for awarding the SSM and DFC, we believe the applicant’s gallantry
in action on 23 September 1970, clearly meets the criteria for the SSM. In
this respect, we note the applicant is a former Rustic Forward Air
Controller (FAC) OV-10 pilot. The evidence of record indicates that on 23
September 1970, deep within Cambodia, the applicant was providing support
of an Allied unit that came under heavy enemy attack from bunkers and
fortified positions within 25 meters of their front and both flanks. Due
to marginal weather conditions, fighter aircraft support was unavailable,
and the AC-119 gunship that had been covering the convoy had already left
the area due to engine trouble. With total disregard for his own safety
and despite the low ceiling and poor visibility, he made several passes
over the hostile forces expending all of his own ordnance with extreme
accuracy. As a result of his unselfish heroism, the lives of 150 men were
saved. His former commander states the original SSM recommendation was
downgraded erroneously by administrative personnel based on the erroneous
belief that being wounded in combat was a prerequisite for the award. In
addition, this Board has considered several applications from members of
the Rustic FAC units and found 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 his 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 on 11 March 1971, he was awarded the
Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United
States on 23 September 1970, rather than the Distinguished Flying Cross.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2001-
01303 in Executive Session on 12 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 11 Oct 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 27 Feb 04, w/atchs.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2001-01303
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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 11 March 1971,
he was awarded the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action against an
enemy of the United States on 23 September 1970, rather than the
Distinguished Flying Cross.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00916
DPPPR states that many members of the decedent’s organization, Rustic FAC did not receive recognition of specific flights due to rapid mission requirements. 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). 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...
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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | 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...
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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states that on 25 May 01, they requested the applicant provide a copy of the citations to the basic DFC and all the Air Medals. On 27 Jul 01, DPPPR forwarded the case to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for determination of the applicant's...