RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03558
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 FEB 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect the Valor (“V”) device for his
previously awarded Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was awarded the DFC for inflight combat performances in Southeast
Asia (SEA). The “V” device is now authorized for the DFC to denote
heroism. He flew 176 combat missions in SEA.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 2 January 1964, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.
Special Order G-1585 dated 11 April 1970 reflects the applicant was
awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement for his participation in
an aerial flight on 3 March 1969.
The applicant’s records reflect he was awarded the DFC, Meritorious
Service Medal (MSM) with two Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs), Air Medal (AM)
with seven OLCs, Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Air Force Good
Conduct Medal (AFGCM) with five OLCs, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship
Ribbon, Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Professional Military Education
Graduate Ribbon with one OLC, Air Force Longevity Service Award
(AFLSA) Ribbon with four OLCs, National Defense Service Medal (NDSM),
Air Force Overseas Long Tour Ribbon, Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with
six
OLCs, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA) with one OLC, Republic
of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVCM).
The applicant retired on 1 November 1985, as a senior master sergeant
(SMSgt). He served 21 years and 7 days of active duty service.
On 4 June 2004, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) authorized the
use of the “V” device, to represent valor on the DFC awarded for
heroism. The “V” device is intended to clearly distinguish and denote
a DFC awarded for heroism. Any Air Force member (Active Duty, Guard,
or Reserve) or veteran, who was awarded the DFC for heroism on or
after 18 September 1947 is now authorized to wear the “V” device on
the DFC. The announcement also stated “A DFC for heroism approved on
or after 3 June 2004 will reflect “Valor” on all elements
(certificate, citation, and order). All elements of a DFC for heroism
approved (certificate dated) between 18 September 1947 to 2 June 2004
will not be reaccomplished to reflect “Valor”; nonetheless,
individuals with these DFCs are authorized to the wear the “V”
device.”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPR states the applicant was awarded the DFC for
extraordinary achievement and not heroism. There is no supporting
documentation in the applicant’s records indicating the recommending
official or approval authority’s reason for the decoration should be
changed from “extraordinary achievement” to “heroism”. This action
can only be accomplished by the recommending official or approval
authority, not the servicemember.
HQ AFPC/DPPPR further states the SAF clearly stated that DFCs awarded
for heroism and not extraordinary achievement are authorized the “V”
device. Therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request for the “V”
device be denied since he was awarded the DFC for extraordinary
achievement and not heroism.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 20 January 2006, for review and response. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice. We took note of the
documentation provided in support of the applicant’s request to have
the “V” device added to his DFC. On 4 June 2004, the SAF authorized
the use of the “V” device for servicemembers who were awarded the DFC
on or after 18 September 1947 for heroism. The applicant was awarded
the DFC on 5 February 1972 for extraordinary achievement. After a
thorough review of the applicant’s personnel records, no evidence was
found to verify he was eligible for or recommended for the DFC for
heroism; nor has he provided any documentation reflecting he was
awarded the DFC for heroism. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-03558 in Executive Session on 7 March 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2005-03558 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Nov 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, 11 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01409
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. Any Air Force member or veteran who was awarded the DFC for heroism on or after 18 September 1947 is now authorized to wear the “V” Device on the DFC. The Distinguished Flying Cross is considered a valorous award; therefore, the “V” device is not required and is considered superfluous.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00916
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00916 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and Fifth and Sixth Oak Leaf Clusters to the Air Medal (AM, 5 & 6 OLCs). In 2001, the AFBCMR awarded a DFC and additional AMs to an applicant who had...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00386
AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that although the applicant’s records indicate that he completed a total of 35 combat missions and he has submitted a DFC recommendation signed by his former commander, in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM or DFC based solely on the number of combat missions completed, but rather for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. Applicant’s records do not indicate he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02433
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR states there is no indication in the applicant’s records that he was recommended or awarded the DFC with first through third OLC. HQ AFPC/DPPPR further stated the applicant’s one year service in Vietnam was verified by his DD Form 214 dated 26 February 1972. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
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 | CY2004 | bc-2004-02294
During the period in question, he was told by a major at base headquarters that upon returning stateside, he would receive the DFC for his completion of a tour of 32 combat missions and an oak leaf cluster to the DFC for his completion of 14 lead missions. Under the revised policy, the DFC could be awarded for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. In view of this statement, and given the total number of missions the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01247
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01247 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXX (DECEASED) COUNSEL: DR ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 OCT 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and awarded the Air Medal (AM) with five Oak Leaf Clusters...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00219
In 1943, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM or DFC based solely on the number of combat missions completed, but rather for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. In this respect, the available evidence of record reflects the applicant completed a total of 35 combat missions while assigned to the Eighth Air Force as a B-17 pilot. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Member of Congress, dated 23 Mar 09, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2004-00787
Under the revised policy, the DFC could be awarded for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for applicant states, among other things, that the requested relief should be favorably considered based on the recommendation of the applicant’s former commanding officer and in view of the established...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03581
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 Dec 06, for review and comment within 30 days. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded the applicant should be awarded the DFC. We took notice of the complete submission in judging the...