Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01922
Original file (BC-2007-01922.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01922
                                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 December 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD form 214, Armed Forces of the United States  Report  of  Transfer  or
Discharge, be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished  Flying  Cross
(DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded the DFC while assigned in the Republic of Vietnam  from  1970
to 1971.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD  Form
214.

The applicant’s submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 February 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 19 for a period of four years in the  rank  of  airman  basic  (E-1).
The applicant was progressively promoted to the rank of sergeant (E-4)  with
a date of rank of 1 June 1970.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 1 February  1972  for  convenience
of the government.  He was credited with 3 years, 11 months, and 18 days  of
active duty service, of which 2 years, 11 months and  27  days  was  foreign
service.  His DD  Form  214  identified  his  decorations  as  the  National
Defense Service Medal and the Air Force Good Conduct Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request  for  award  of  the
DFC.  DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to any member  of  the  United  States
Armed Forces who has distinguished themselves in actual  combat  in  support
of operations by heroism or extraordinary  achievement  while  participating
in aerial flight.  After a  thorough  review  of  the  applicant’s  official
military record, they were unable to locate an  official  recommendation  or
special order of an approved award of the DFC  that  would  authenticate  an
update of the applicant’s Report of Separation.

DPPPR was able to verify the applicant’s entitlement to the Air  Medal  with
two Oak Leaf clusters (AM w/2OLC), the  Vietnam  Service  Medal  (VSM),  the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/P), and the  Republic
of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVNCM).

The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  13
July 2007, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).   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 a thorough review of  the  available
records, we found no evidence that the applicant is eligible for  the  award
of the DFC.  We note the applicant’s assertion that he was awarded the  DFC;
however, there is no indication in his records that he was recommended  for,
or awarded, the DFC.  Therefore, we agree with  the  opinion  from  the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant is  not  a  victim
of error or  injustice  in  regard  to  award  of  the  DFC.   The  personal
sacrifice  the  applicant  endured  for  his  country  is  noted   and   the
recommendation to deny the requested relief in no way  diminishes  the  high
regard we have for his service.  Nevertheless, in  view  of  the  above,  we
find no basis to favorably consider 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 29 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2007-01922:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 07, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 28 Jun 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01409

    Original file (BC-2005-01409.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01676

    Original file (BC-2007-01676.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation provided by the applicant reflects that a citation for award of the DFC was submitted to the PACAF Awards and Decorations Board; the Board disapproved the DFC and recommended no lesser decoration be awarded. In both of the DPPPR evaluations the recommendation was to deny applicant’s request for reconsideration of the DFC. Exhibit C. Letters, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 12 Jun 07 and 17 Jul 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01487

    Original file (BC-2007-01487.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01487 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Combat Readiness Medal (CRM), and his service in the Air Force Reserve be reflected on a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. Based on the DFC and five...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01916

    Original file (BC-2006-01916.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied. After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the applicant is eligible for award of the DFC. While we note the applicant’s contention that his commanding officer recommended him for the DFC on three occasions, neither the applicant nor his records provide evidence he was recommended for the DFC.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00004

    Original file (BC-2003-00004.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision of the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E. In a letter, dated 18 March 2001, the applicant provided additional documentation, to include a newspaper article regarding retroactive award of the DFC to a World War II veteran, and requested reconsideration of his application. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-01922

    Original file (BC-2005-01922.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01591

    Original file (BC-2007-01591.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    HQ AFPC/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 on 15 Jun 07 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02299

    Original file (BC-2006-02299.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The War Department General Order #12 dated 11 February 1944, awarded the Air Medal (AM) to each of the pilots of the first flight of the P- 38’s, which flew across the North Atlantic from the United States to the United Kingdom, between 5-16 September 1942, for subsequent combat application. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02900

    Original file (BC-2005-02900.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His record only shows six awards of the Air Medal when he was awarded seven. They do not find any evidence the applicant was recommended for or awarded the Soldiers Medal, DFC (1OLC), or the AM (6OLC). 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 the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01126

    Original file (BC-2005-01126.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application for upgrade of the awarded AM to the DFC be approved based on the supporting documentation provided by the applicant to substantiate that, as the aircraft commander, he planned, developed, coordinated and lead the rescue mission for which the copilot received a DFC. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...