RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01230
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 14 Oct 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded awards or medals for heroism for his actions on 10 September
1972 at Bien Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was never adequately awarded nor given the proper medals for his heroism
shown during the munitions holding area explosions on 10 September 1972.
He walked through the exploding munitions dump and rescued several people.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits several statements in his
behalf, a summary of the history of the 377th Air Base Wing from 1 July to
31 December 1972, and newspaper articles.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former Air Force member who served on active duty from 8
February 1971 through 16 May 1974, which included Vietnam service during
the period 10 November 1971 to 24 November 1972.
On 11 January 2001, the Board considered applicant’s request that his
records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Small Arms Expert
Marksmanship Ribbon. The Board found insufficient evidence of a probable
error or injustice and denied the application. On 21 November 2001, the
Board considered applicant’s request to be awarded the Medal of Honor for
his actions on 10 September 1972. The Board found insufficient evidence of
a probable error or injustice and denied the application (BC-2000-01598).
On 19 February 2004, the Board considered applicant’s request that his
records be corrected to show that he is entitled to the Presidential Unit
Citation (PUC). The Board found insufficient evidence that he was assigned
to a unit that was awarded the PUC and denied the application (BC-2003-
02602).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for any medals for
heroism. AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that medals for heroism while engaged
in an action against an enemy of the United States include the Medal of
Honor (MOH), the Air Force Cross (AFC), and the Bronze Star (BS). All are
awarded for heroism at differing levels for military operations involving
conflict against an opposing armed force. Further, each recommendation for
a decoration for heroism must incontestably prove the self-sacrifice or
personal bravery involved conspicuous risk of life, the omission of which
could not justly cause censure. On 8 April 2003, AFPC/DPPPR advised
applicant that an individual could not recommend himself for a decoration
and discovered his request for the MOH was previously denied by the AFBCMR.
The statements submitted with applicant’s request are not from individuals
that witnessed his actions firsthand, nor do they supply any additional
documentation needed to support reconsideration. There is no documentation
in applicant’s military records to indicate that he was recommended for, or
awarded, any decoration for heroism.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 13 May 2005 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of this
date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that
he has been the victim of an error or injustice. The statements submitted
in the applicant’s behalf are duly noted; however, these individuals did
not witness his actions on 10 September 1972 firsthand. Furthermore, there
is no documentation in applicant’s military records, nor has he provided
any, to indicate that he was recommended for, or awarded, any decoration
for heroism. Therefore, in the absence of evidence establishing that his
records are in error or unjust, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; 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 Docket Number BC-2005-01230
in Executive Session on 23 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-01922
The DD Form 256AF, Honorable Discharge Certificate, which is only issued as an original document to the individual concerned, and the AF Form 626, Request and Authorization for Temporary Duty Travel of Military Personnel, are not filed in the personnel record. The applicant states he saved a communication center from being completely sabotaged and was recommended for award of the MOH. After a review of the applicant’s record and provided documentation, AFPC/DPPPR was unable to verify the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02780
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received $100.00 at the time of his discharge but never received the additional $200.00. He did not receive the additional AM, nor did he receive the medal the crew officers recommended him for a deed up and beyond the call of duty. The applicant did not provide any documentation to support award of the AM or DFC.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02396
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-2005-02508
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 October 2005, for review and response within 30 days. We took note of the documentation provided in support of the applicant's request for award of the DFC for completion of 14 lead crew missions and an additional AM for completion of his last five missions. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01238
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be awarded the AM because he was assigned to the flight crew of the commander of the 84th Depot Repair Squadron, 15th Air Force, who was awarded the AM. Further, under the 1996 NDAA service members may request consideration of awards not previously eligible because of time limitations, provided the written recommendations be made by someone other than the member himself, in the member’s chain...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00538
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00538 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded three additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00357 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00700
In this respect, we note that counsel has failed to provide evidence that the member was ever recommended for a BSM. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 May 1944, he was awarded the Air Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Navigator on B-17 airplanes on many bombardment...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00543
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00543 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). Although applicant has provided documentation indicating he completed 30 combat missions,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02179
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02179 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and two additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). In addition, based on the Eighth Air Force policy...