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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02826
            INDEX NUMBER: 107.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 Mar 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) he was awarded for heroism  on  6  June
1972 be upgraded to the Silver Star (SS).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 April 2005,  the  Board  considered  the  application  and  recommended
favorable consideration.  For an accounting of the facts  and  circumstances
surrounding  the   application   and   the   rationale   for   the   Board’s
recommendation, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.

On 28 April 2005, the Director, Air Force Review  Boards  Agency  determined
that  applicant  had  not  exhausted  all  of  his  administrative  remedies
provided by law or regulations and directed:  (1)  An  advisory  opinion  be
obtained from the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC);  (2)
a copy of the advisory opinion be provided to the applicant for  review  and
comment; and (3) the case be  returned  to  the  AFBCMR  panel  for  further
consideration (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The SAFPC recommends the application be denied and  states,  in  part,  that
while there is little doubt the applicant  demonstrated  some  extraordinary
airmanship, decisive leadership, and heroism on 6 June 1972,  for  which  he
was awarded the DFC, the degree of heroism exhibited does not  rise  to  the
level  required  to  merit  the  award  of  the  SS.    The   narrative   SS
recommendation and proposed citation lack the distinct measure of  intensity
of risk associated with the SS awards provided for comparison.  There is  no
description to qualify that the risk to which he was exposed  was  any  more
intense than normally expected by other airman in similar situations.   When
evaluating the degree of heroism exhibited on 6 June 1972  along  the  valor
continuum, the applicant’s actions fall more in line with  the  historically
consistent  themes  associated  with  the  DFC  (under  extremely  hazardous
conditions, exemplarity aerial skill and superior airmanship,  forced  enemy
to withdraw/abandon their attacks) than with the SS.

The SAFPC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Subsequent to  his  extraction  from  the  An  Loc  area,  the  recommending
official expressed his concerns that  fully  revealed  the  details  of  the
mission could result in disciplinary action because of the  risks  taken  in
flying below the minimum altitude for  Forward  Air  Controllers  (FACs)  at
that time.  The risk factor was so extreme pilots were not scheduled to  fly
dual-pilot missions  during  daylight  hours  and  night  missions  were  so
demanding it was necessary to schedule those missions with two  pilots.   He
feels very strongly that most of his contemporaries would not  have  elected
to penetrate the solid under cast having no idea how low, if  at  all,  they
would break out of the weather.  During the entire day, pilot  reports  from
An Loc had continuously maintained  that  the  entire  area  was  considered
totally unworkable for any type of  aircraft  for  close  air  support.   He
honestly believes he satisfied the requirement of gallantry  in  action  and
deserves to be awarded the SS.

In further support of his appeal,  applicant  provides  correspondence  from
his member of Congress, an excerpt from The Battle of An Loc to  help  fully
comprehend the troop strengths and risk of flying an unarmed O-2A,  low  and
slow below a ragged overcast in  heavy  rain  for  hours  over  the  An  Loc
battlefield.  He also provides several statements of support, to  include  a
statement from the former Air Liaison Officer/Commander of Sundog  FACs  who
had firsthand knowledge of the lethal anti-aircraft environment over An  Loc
and was responsible for scheduling all operational  flying  and  the  former
Advisor 18th Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) who was airborne in  the
An Loc vicinity and heard the FM transmissions  between  the  applicant  and
Col S.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________





THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After  thoroughly  reviewing  the  SAFPC  evaluation  and   the   additional
documentation  provided  by  the  applicant,  we  are  still  convinced  his
gallantry in action on 6 June 1972, meets  the  criteria  for  the  SS.   As
stated in  our  previous  conclusions,  despite  the  loss  of  his  primary
navigational aid,  severe  weather  conditions,  and  intense  anti-aircraft
artillery  (AAA)  fire  against  his  unarmed  observation   aircraft,   the
applicant descended through dense cloud cover and made several  passes  over
the hostile forces placing marking rounds to insure the destruction  of  the
enemy forces within close proximity of the friendly  forces.   Further,  the
additional  documentation  provided  by  the   applicant   strengthens   our
conviction that applicant’s request  should  be  favorably  considered.   We
note the former Advisor 18th Army of the Republic  of  Vietnam  (ARVN),  who
was airborne in the An Loc vicinity and heard the FM  transmissions  between
the applicant and Col S, states  that  when  comparing  the  applicant’s  SS
recommendation  to  other  decoration   narratives,   the   differences   in
environment must be considered.  In the applicant’s case,  he  states,  that
never had South Vietnam seen air defense forces like those encountered  over
Ad Loc and despite this, the applicant voluntarily  and  repeatedly  exposed
himself to intense AAA fire for over an  hour  over  the  battlefield  in  a
small, unarmed observation aircraft, saved several lives, and  deserves  the
SS.  In view of the totality of  the  evidence  presented,  we  believe  the
applicant’s actions on 6 June 1972, justify awarding the SS.  Therefore,  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:

      a.    On 3 January 1973,  he  was  awarded  the  Distinguished  Flying
Cross (DFC) for extraordinary  achievement  while  participating  in  aerial
flight on 21 August 1972, rather than the DFC, First Oak Leaf Cluster.

      b.    On  11  January  1973,  he  was  awarded  the  Silver  Star  for
gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States  on  6 June  1972,
rather than the DFC.

_________________________________________________________________





The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
02826 in Executive Session on 21 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Member
                  Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Memo, SAF/MRB, dated 28 Apr 05.
    Exhibit G.  Memo, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 May 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 May 05, w/atchs.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair


AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB, MD  20762-7002



Dear XXXXX

      Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records, AFBCMR BC-2004-02826, has been finalized.

      The Board recommended that the military records should be corrected
as set forth in the attached Addendum to Record of Proceedings.  However,
after a careful review and consideration of all factors involved, the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, in the
exercise of his discretionary authority, did not concur with the
recommendation of the Board and determined that the evidence you presented
did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.
Accordingly, he denied your application.  The rationale for his decision is
outlined at attachment 2.

      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for
consideration by the deciding official.   In the absence of such additional
evidence, a further review of your application is not possible.

                                        Sincerely



                                        ROSE M. KIRKPATRICK
                                        Chief Examiner
                                        Air Force Board for Correction
                                        of Military Records

Attachments:
1.  Addendum to Record of Proceedings
2.  SAF/MR Letter
3.  Survey


MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
      CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Case - XXXXX

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case,
including the examples of similar cases of individuals receiving the
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and the Silver Star (SS) and do not agree
with the AFBCMR panel that the applicant should be awarded the SS rather
than the DFC for demonstrating extraordinary airmanship over 33 years ago.
First, there is a presumption of regularity that government officials
perform their duties in a proper manner, a presumption, in my view, that
was not given adequate weight in this case.  Specifically, here the unit
submitted the applicant for the award they believed was appropriate.
During the review process, dispassionate authorities with information on
many other nominations across the theater, charged with maintaining award
consistency, determined that awarding the DFC was more appropriate than the
SS.  Downgrading and upgrading nominations are critical components of the
review process, then as now, and unless inappropriate nonmerit based
criteria is considered, downgrading should not be viewed as a factor that
supports finding an error or injustice.  Even if this medal was submitted
during a time period when downgrading nominations was becoming more
prevalent, the presumption of regularity would support an assumption that
this was a proper step to address medal inflation, not a program to deny
members awards which they deserved.

      The panel’s recommendation is also problematic because it is not
supported by any factor other than the panel’s disagreement with the
original determination and the Director of  SAF/PC advisory that the DFC
was the more appropriate combat award.  In this manner, the panel has acted
as if they were an additional award review authority and released
themselves from the obligation to find an error or injustice.  I
acknowledge that in some cases the criteria of a specific award could so
clearly have been met, or that a certain medal was so frequently awarded in
the same time frame for virtually identical conduct, that denial of that
medal would be an injustice.  That is simply not the case here.  With all
due respect to the panel, its recommendation is little more than a
difference of opinion with previous Air Force decision makers on the degree
of heroism demonstrated.

      Lastly, I have grave misgivings about board panels comparing award
citations without the full nomination packages used in decoration
processing 30 years prior.  Such reviews may in fact identify other members
who have received higher precedent combat awards based upon conduct very
similar to the applicant’s.  Nevertheless, I would compare this area to
BCMR reviews of failure to promote situations.  The BCMR process has
consistently refused to compare allegedly identical officer records to
explain why an applicant was not promoted.  Rather, they rely upon the
Special Selection Board members to distinguish between very close and
properly aged records.  In a similar manner, it would seem to me the BCMR
panels should defer to the judgment of the members entrusted with reviewing
combat decorations and approve awards directly only when there is
substantial evidence that the process was flawed or the contested award is
clearly inconsistent with previous precedents.  As previously stated, this
is simply not the case here.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request to
change his records to show he was awarded the SS rather than the DFC is
denied.




                                        MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
                                        Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force
                                        (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)