RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02495
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: Mr. Harold G. Mercer
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Air Medal (AM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to the classified nature of the Rustic Operation, draw down of U.S.
forces in Vietnam and Thailand, the exigencies of the mission, among other
related issues, timely and appropriate recognition were precluded.
In support of his request, applicant provided his counsel's brief, proposed
citation, endorsement affidavits, and his Officer Effectiveness Report
closing 2 Jun 71. His complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam as an airborne Intelligence
officer assigned to Rustic Operation.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends consideration be given to his request for award of
the AM. DPPPR states many members of the Rustic Forward Air Controller
(FAC) units did not receive recognition of specific flights due to the
rapid mission requirements at the time. Recognition is now being afforded
these Rustic FAC members. The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. Since his request for award of the
Aircrew Member Badge has been administratively corrected, the only issue to
be decided is whether award of the AM is warranted. Evidence provided by
the applicant, to include affidavits from his former supervisor and
individuals with first-hand knowledge of his accomplishments, indicate he
flew FAC intelligence gathering missions over the Republic of Vietnam. It
appears that timely submission for award of the AM was precluded by to the
classified nature of Rustic operations and exigencies of the service. In
view of the above and in recognition of his achievements in the service to
his country, it is our opinion that his records should be corrected to
reflect award of the AM as 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 he was awarded the Air Medal for
extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight in Southeast
Asia on 5 July 1971.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-
02495 in Executive Session on 28 Sep 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jul 04, /atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 24 Sep 04, w/atch.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-02495
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 he was awarded the Air
Medal for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight in
Southeast Asia on 5 July 1971.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
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...
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...