RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02018
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  Harold G. Mercer

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 FEB 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be  awarded  the  Distinguished  Flying  Cross  (DFC)  for  extraordinary
achievement on 16 June 1972.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the then classified nature of the mission and the  draw  down  of  US
forces in Southeast Asia, together with exigencies of  the  mission,  timely
and appropriate recognition were precluded.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  affidavits  from  his  former
commander and pilot with whom he flew  the  16  June  1972  mission,  and  a
proposed DFC citation.

The pilot of the 16 June 1972 mission recommends the  applicant  be  awarded
the DFC and states that he attributes much of the success of the mission  to
the applicant’s skill, sense of the ongoing battle, and  close  coordination
with the ground commander.   He  further  states  that  he  could  not  have
succeeded in directing the  air  strikes  so  close  to  friendly  positions
without the applicant’s exceptional ability to communicate with  the  ground
commanders and filter the most pertinent information to him.

The applicant’s former commander states that he recalls  signing/  approving
the applicant’s DFC recommendation for his exploits on 16 June 1972.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
12 September 1955.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  senior
master sergeant.

During the period 14 January 1970 to 24 December 1970, he  was  assigned  to
the 823rd Civil Engineering Squadron, at  Bien  Hoa,  Vietnam.   During  the
period 17 July 1971 to 16 July 1972, he was assigned to  the  23rd  Tactical
Air Support Squadron, Ubon, Republic of Thailand  Air  Force  Base  (RTAFB),
Thailand  as  an  Airborne  Linguist/Interpreter  Specialist   (Observer   &
Interpreter) aboard OV-10 aircraft providing direct support for Forward  Air
Controllers (FAC) during Operation Rustic over Cambodia,  and  completed  75
missions over hostile territory.

On 30 November 1985,  the  applicant  was  relieved  from  active  duty  and
retired effective 1 December 1985, in the grade of senior  master  sergeant.
His DD Form 214, Report of Separation or Discharge from  the  Armed  Forces,
indicates that he was awarded  the  AM  with  7  devices;  however,  he  was
awarded the AM, with Six Oak Leaf Clusters (AM, 6 OLC), for  a  total  of  7
AMs.

The DFC was established by Congress  on  2 July  1926  and  is  awarded  for
heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in  aerial  flight.
The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary  action
above and beyond the call of duty.

On 14 December 2001, the AFBCMR favorably  considered  the  applications  of
two former enlisted Airborne Interpreters who provided  direct  support  for
Forward Air Controllers (FAC) during Operation Rustic,  and  upgraded  their
AMs to DFCs (BC-2001-02436 and BC-2001-02437).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Director, SAFPC recommends the application be  denied,  and  states,  in
part, that applicant’s actions on 16 June 1972, lack the requisite level  of
risk to warrant awarding the DFC.  Colonel McClellan’s statement,  “As  with
most such missions, small arms fire directed at us was routine, while  never
very comforting,” implies that there was some significant risk, but not  any
more so than expected or received  on  other  “routine”  missions,  some  of
which the  applicant  was  equally  recognized  through  the  award  of  six
previous AMs.  Higher awards, such as the DFC, require  exposure  to  higher
levels of risk, beyond that documented in  the  current  nomination.   Since
the applicant was awarded the AM, 6 OLC, for his actions  on  16 June  1972,
he is seeking reconsideration and upgrade of a previous award,  rather  than
a new award.  Receiving awards for previously unrecognized  actions  is  one
thing;  but  finding  sufficient  justification  to   upgrade   a   previous
decoration,  overriding  the  new  real-time  decision   of   a   delegated,
competent,  and  experienced  approval  authority,  is  a  different   thing
altogether.  The fact that he was previously recognized for his actions  was
conspicuously  omitted  from  the  current  application.   Furthermore,  his
request was not submitted to the  Air  Force  Decorations  Board  under  the
provisions of Section 526 of the 1996  National  Defense  Authorization  Act
(NDAA); specifically, it was not submitted through a  congressional  member.
As such, he has not exhausted all  remedies  provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations prior to applying to the AFBCMR.  Since the initial  recognition
process was initiated eight days after the date of the  action,  SAFPC  does
not concur with counsel’s contention that due to various reasons timely  and
appropriate  recognition  was  precluded.   SAFPC   acknowledges   counsel’s
inclusion of numerous  other  awards  recognizing  individuals  involved  in
Rustic Operations were approved by the AFBCMR; however, the merits of  those
cases do not serve to substantiate the merits  of  the  applicant’s  actions
since each nomination must be  evaluated  on  its  own  merits  against  the
established eligibility criteria.

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.  A number of circumstances may have  contributed
to this.  Aside from submitting the request through a  member  of  congress,
he has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law  or  regulation.   In
this regard, counsel accepts responsibility for this action as  it  was  his
intent to expedite  the  submission,  given  the  applicant’s  age  and  the
upcoming Rustic Reunion to be held from 22 through 25  September  2005.   In
the event that such a congressional  submission  should  be  undertaken,  he
requests the submission be withdrawn in order to  proceed  in  this  manner.
However, if it is feasible to advance the  submission  as  made,  given  the
SAFPC evaluation, and, if the omission of a  congressional  submission  will
not have an adverse effect on the decision of the AFBCMR,  he  requests  the
AFBCMR proceed in rendering a decision.  In  all  submissions  made  by  the
Rustic  FAC  Association  to  date,  extenuating  circumstances  have   been
detailed noting that then headquarters review and decision  authorities  did
not have all the facts surrounding actions by Rustic personnel  due  to  the
classification of the mission at the time.  Had all facts  been  subject  to
the review process at the time, there is no  doubt  timely  and  appropriate
recognition would have been forthcoming.

In further support of the appeal, documentation regarding the award of  DFCs
to fellow enlisted Airborne  Interpreters  serving  in  Southeast  Asia  are
provided.  Counsel’s complete response 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
applicant's submission and the criteria for award of  the  DFC,  it  is  our
opinion that  the  applicant’s  actions  meet  the  definitive  guidance  of
extraordinary achievement required for award of the DFC.  The former  pilots
that flew the subject mission with the applicant indicate  that  they  would
not have been able to complete  the  mission,  and  attribute  much  of  the
success of the  mission  for  which  they  received  the  DFC,  without  the
applicant’s exceptional ability to communicate with ground commanders  while
under  enemy  fire.   The  evidence  presented   to   this   Board   clearly
substantiates that the applicant’s  performance  during  this  mission  went
beyond what was required in  the  normal  performance  of  his  duty  as  an
Interpreter.  More importantly, we note due to the classified nature of  the
mission at the time, specific information pertaining to the mission was  not
made  available  to  the  deciding  authorities.  Counsel  notes  that   the
applicant has provided documentation regarding the award of DFCs  to  fellow
enlisted Airborne Interpreters serving in Southeast Asia that performed  the
same duties and extraordinary achievements as he did.  We took note  of  the
Personnel Council's view  on  the  matter  and  their  contention  that  the
accomplishments have been previously considered and that an  Air  Medal  was
awarded.  However, as stated, we believe that due to the  classified  nature
of  the  mission,  the  deciding  officials  may  not  have  been  aware  of
applicant's actions at that time.  In view of the support  from  individuals
who witnessed his accomplishments, we recommend the applicant’s  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  he  was  awarded  the  Distinguished
Flying Cross for extraordinary achievement, while  participating  in  aerial
flight as a Linguist/Interrogator Specialist (Observer and  Interpreter)  in
Southeast Asia on 16 Jun 1972.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
02018, in Executive Session on 21 Sep 05, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAFPC, dated 19 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 23 Aug 05.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 31 Aug 05, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-02018




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
Distinguished   Flying   Cross   for   extraordinary   achievement,    while
participating  in  aerial  flight  as  a  Linguist/Interrogator   Specialist
(Observer and Interpreter) in Southeast Asia on 16 June 1972.






                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency