RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03583
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 12 FEBRUARY 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Air Medal (AM) awarded on 17 Aug 2004 for heroism be upgraded to the
Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor (DFC w/V).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was involved in a combat search and rescue (CSAR) operation for a downed
F-15E further north in Iraq. He and his crew refueled the downed crew’s
flight lead and then flew north to assist other CSAR involved aircraft. He
has not found evidence of another KC-135 ever being engaged by enemy SAMs
in enemy territory. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force strongly believed
another KC-135 crew to be worthy of the DFC for merely flying their unarmed
tanker into enemy territory with the opportunity for enemy continued
mission.
He does not believe his former commander should be involved. Neither was
aware of similar missions and “standardized decorations” for certain
actions or missions. He believes USCENTAF should equalize those
decorations across the length and scope of operations. If his request is
disapproved, he requests guidance on specific actions to help complete his
requests.
In support of his application, he submits his initial application dated 18
Nov 2005, a copy of a letter from HQ AFPC/DPPPR, a copy of his Air Medal
citation, copies of recommendation for decoration deployed/contingency
operations for him and his crew, copies of various news article, copies of
e-mail traffic, a copy of a proposed DFC citation, a copy of a message from
USCENTAF, a copy of an excerpt from USCENTAF Decoration Guidebook, a copy
of an aircrew excellence award submission, and a copy of the DFC medal
criteria.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the
grade of major with a date of rank of 1 Feb 2002. He is assigned as Chief,
C9/C40/C29 Training and Tactics.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. DPPPR states it is the recommending
official’s decision to determine whether a decoration recommendation will
be submitted in accordance with AFI 36-2803, Para 1.7.1. The applicant was
recommended and approved for award of the AM; therefore, he needs to
provide an upgrade recommendation from the original recommending official
or senior rater.
DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for
review and comment on 18 Sep 2006. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit D). In a letter dated 20 Oct 06, the
original recommending official of the award stated that with the
information he now has, he fully supports the applicant and his crew for an
upgrade of the AM to the DFC for Heroism (Valor) (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After reviewing the applicant’s
submission, we do not find the evidence sufficient to warrant the approval
of the requested relief. It appears the approval authority at the time
determined the AM was the more appropriate award for the applicant’s
meritorious achievement and we find no basis upon which to disagree with
that determination. We note the original recommending official’s letter
that supports upgrading the AM to a DFC with Valor; however, USCENTAF/CC is
the delegated approval authority. Should he wish to pursue the matter, the
applicant may request the original recommending official submit the award
upgrade request, with an exception to policy letter (the award is more than
two years old), to CENTAF for approval.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
03583 in Executive Sessions on 21 November 2006 and 13 December 2006 under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia R.Collins, Member
Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, 18 Sep 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AMC/A8PP, dated 20 Oct 2006.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02052
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02052 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two additional oak leaf cluster to the Distinguished Flying Cross and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal. In 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02528 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He and his crew be awarded an unspecified decoration for destroying enemy jet fighters during a bombing mission from Italy to Berlin, Germany, on 24 Mar 45. On 12 Apr 96, a Congressional representative requested that the applicant and...
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-2003-03307
The Air Medal (AM) that was awarded to him on 4 November 2002 by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) is not the appropriate decoration for his actions. The control cables were severed, and the aircraft could not be landed safely without the cables controlling the flaps. DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in flight.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02836
If one member of a crew receives the DFC all members should. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that in 1944 he and others were selected to be lead crew and would receive the DFC upon completion of 30 missions. He states that AFPC has erred in their recommendation and that he should be granted the medal as well as the recognition of a certificate.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02913
After a review of the applicant’s military record, they were unable to locate an award or recommendation to verify his entitlement to the DFC. After a complete review of the applicant’s former commander’s personnel record, DPPPR was unable to verify the applicant’s name on the DFC Special Order (G-1375) presented to his commander on 8 May 1968. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03040
Applicant’s AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, Item 10 (Awards), reflects the DFC and Air Medal (1OLC). After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find that insufficient evidence has been presented to support award of additional Air Medals. In the absence of such evidence we agree with the opinion and recommendation from the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant did not provide any documentation to support his claim with regards to additional Air Medals.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02470
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02470 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 FEB 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he received the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), and a Silver Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal (AM w/1 SOLC). A thorough review of the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02015
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and additional campaign credit for the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal be denied. DPPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC for actions on 10 October 1944; additional campaign credit for the Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal; and, award of the Air Medal with fourth oak leaf cluster for the period 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01849
On 6 September 2006, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a corrected copy of the Air Force evaluation for his review and response. The applicant is requesting award of the SM, PH, PLR and PUC. KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01849 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...