Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02175
Original file (BC-2004-02175.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02175
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Medal of Honor (MOH) in lieu of  the  Silver  Star  (First
Oak Leaf Cluster) (SS (1OLC)) he received for his  actions  on  11 September
1967.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  actions  on  11  September  1967  were  definitely  deserving  of   the
Congressional Medal of Honor.

In  support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits   a   supportive
statement, his personal statement, a copy of  his  separation  document  (DD
214),  a  Silver  Star  citation  (2),  a  draft  White  House  response,  a
Distinguished Flying Cross citation (4), a PACAF Order of the Able  Aeronaut
Award, an Army Commendation Medal citation, and the  Republic  of  Vietnam’s
Gallantry  Cross  with  Silver  Star  citation.   The  applicant's  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The National Personnel Records Center, St Louis, MO, was  unable  to  locate
the applicant’s military personnel records.  As a result, the  following  is
the only known information pertaining to the  applicant’s  service  and  was
extracted  from  the  partially  reconstructed  record  and  from  documents
provided by the applicant.

The applicant was released from active duty on 31 August  1974  and  retired
in the grade of Major on 1 September  1974.   He  was  credited  with  total
active service time of 20 years, 1 month, and 28 days.  He was  awarded  the
Silver Star for gallantry in action on 11 September 1967.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR states the MOH is given in the  name
of Congress to officers and enlisted members  who  distinguished  themselves
by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their lives,  above  and  beyond
the call of duty, in action involving actual combat with an armed  enemy  of
the United States.  Furthermore, the MOH  recommendations  must  be  entered
formally into the official channels in two years of the act  warranting  the
recommendation, and awarded in three years.  However, a member  of  Congress
can request a consideration of a proposal for the award or  presentation  of
a decoration not previously submitted in  a  timely  fashion.   DPPPR  notes
there is no supporting documentation from the applicant’s chain  of  command
recommending him for the MOH or upgrading his SS (1OLC) to the  MOH.   DPPPR
opines the SS is awarded for gallantry in action that does not  warrant  the
MOH.

The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reiterates  his  earlier  contentions,   and   provided   an
additional report of action on the events of September  11,  1967,  a  PACAF
Order of the Able  Aeronaut  Award  with  1st  Indorsement,  a  Republic  of
Vietnam’s Gallantry Cross with Silver Star citation, and the  Point  of  the
Spear Covey Forward Air Controllers in Vietnam  (a  collection  of  personal
stories and photos)  book.   On  29 August  2004,  the  applicant  requested
additional  information  on  processing  his  request  his  request  through
Congressional  channels.   In  his  letter  dated  21  September  2004,  the
applicant requested the processing of his case  be  continued  and  included
copies of aircraft photographs and  his  childrens’  report  cards  for  the
Board’s review.  All the aforementioned documentation 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the  available
evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that
his records should be corrected to show he is entitled to the award of  the
Medal of Honor.  Other than his assertions, the applicant has  provided  no
evidence leading us to  believe  that  his  superiors  erred  when  he  was
recommended for the Silver Star for his actions on  11 September  1967  and
that recommendation was approved, rather than nominated for  award  of  the
MOH.  We are not unmindful or unappreciative of his service to his  Nation.
However, in view of the above and absent evidence to the  contrary,  we  no
basis on which to favorably consider this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 4 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Member
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2004-02175:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, 16 Aug 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
                   Letter; AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 04.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, 27 Aug 04, w/atchs.








      MARILYN M. THOMAS
      Vice Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02396

    Original file (BC-2006-02396.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He agrees with the recommendation of the Air Force, if his citation does not verify his decision was beyond the call of duty neither the AM or DFC is appropriate (Exhibit E). Congressman Shimkus, in a letter dated 18 December 2006, offers his support in the applicant’s request for an upgrade of AM w/4 OLCs (Exhibit F). On 10 January 2007, the Board staff requested the applicant to provide clarification regarding his request for an upgrade of his AM w/OLCs (Exhibit G).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02176

    Original file (BC-2004-02176.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s previous request to have his DFC, 3OLC upgraded to the SS Medal for his action on 24 May 1969. He was told at the time, the 8th TFW would only submit a recommendation for one SS Medal and since the other pilot was the first to destroy 24 trucks, he would receive the higher award. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02340

    Original file (BC-2006-02340.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). The OER for the following period, 20 Aug 68 - 14 Aug 69, reported the member had been awarded the DFC for heroism, as well as AMs with 1- 7OLCs. Neither the applicant’s submission nor her...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 03019

    Original file (BC 2011 03019.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his SS be upgraded to the MOH; however, the letter provided requests the applicant be reconsidered for the MOH. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 10 Jan 14, the applicant states his Form 5, Pilot Individual Flight Record, shows he flew three combat missions on 25 Jun 64. Exhibit N. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jun 14, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03073

    Original file (BC-2004-03073.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her late husband was awarded the SS in World War II, along with other military members; however, he never received it as he was flying a mission at the time. Effective 13 May 1975, at age 60, he was authorized to receive retired pay per section 1331 and 1402, Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C. DPPPR states that the applicant has not provided any official documentation to show that her late husband...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01569

    Original file (BC-2004-01569.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01569 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to show that he was awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) (6 October 1962-5 November 1965); the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (SO GB-333, 3 December 1965) with valor for service in Vietnam; the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04528

    Original file (BC 2014 04528.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to the PACAF/DP, the awards board had been directed to consider the two enlisted crew members for SSs. However, the Air Force Decorations Board considered and denied the request. h. On 23 May 84, the new PACAF/CV reviewed the nomination packages and recommended both the enlisted crew members for SS.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03160

    Original file (BC-2004-03160.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There also was no decoration recommendation provided by the applicant or in his military records to indicate a SS recommendation was submitted. DPPPR states no individual can recommend himself or herself for a one- time reconsideration for decoration upgrade. As of this date, this office has received no response.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02871

    Original file (BC-2004-02871.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In November 2004, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a 10% increase in retirement pay based on receiving the SS and DFC for heroism. Review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), the approval authority, determined that the increase in pay was not warranted in this case. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01642

    Original file (BC-2011-01642.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01642 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His military personnel records be corrected to include the following awards, decorations, training courses, and qualifications and his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected appropriately: 1. A...