RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01070
INDEX CODE: 107.00
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His citation for his Distinguished Flying Cross with One Oak Leaf Cluster
(DFC w/1OLC) be reworded and he receive the 10 percent additional retired
pay.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His DFC w/1OLC citation, second sentence, should be reworded to read: "As
the aircraft approached the ship, it was pitching and rolling because of
the 25-35 feet waves and the beams, cables and ropes swinging al over the
ship made the rescue approaches next to impossible. There were only about
3-5 minute time to approach the ship to lower the P.M. to the deck and then
back off again to try another approach. It took approximately 4 1/2 hours
to complete the rescue. His exemplary skills and knowledge enabled him to
successfully evacuate a seriously burned Merchant Seaman from his ship to
hospital facilities ashore."
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of this DFC w/1OLC
citation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Effective 1 Jul 77, the applicant retired in the grade of technical
sergeant. He was credited with 22 years, 8 months and 1 day of active
service for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. AFPC/DPSIDR states they do not have the
authority to change the wording to an approved decoration. On 3 Jun 04,
the Secretary of the Air Force 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 or Veteran who was awarded the DFC for heroism on or after
18 Sep 47 is now authorized to wear the "V" device on the DFC. The
complete AFPC/DPSIDR is at Exhibit B.
SAF/MRBP recommends denial. MRBP states the applicant was appropriately
recognized for his actions on the mission in question and that his
recommended changes while probably factually correct, do not justify
changing the citation or awarding the additional 10% retirement pay. The
complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9
May 08 for review and comment within 30 days. 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. 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 offices of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In
view of the above, we find no basis to favorably consider this application.
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 issue 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 Docket Number BC-2008-01070
in Executive Session on 28 Aug 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-
01070 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 17 Apr 08.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 6 Jun 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 08.
WALLACE F. BEARD, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01762
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C & G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. The DFC may be awarded to any person who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the US Armed Forces, distinguished themselves by heroism or...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01113
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were sent to the applicant on 9 May and 16 Jun 08, respectively, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-01721
In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of his DD Form 214; Citation to Accompany the Award of the Soldier’s Medal; and General Orders Number 34, dated 31 August 1953, awarding him the Soldier’s Medal. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority determined he was entitled to a 10 percent increase in his retired pay pursuant to Section 8991 (a)(2), Title 10, United States Code, effective 1...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03248
DPPPWB advises that Air Force promotion policy dictates the closeout date of a decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) and the signature date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for a cycle in question. Should the decoration be upgraded and the applicant promoted to the grade of MSgt with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 89, DPPPWB recommends the Board adjust the applicant’s retirement date to 31 Aug...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02598
DPSIDR states, in part, that after a thorough review of the applicant’s great-uncle’s military record, they are unable to find supporting documentation to indicate he was recommended for the award of the SS or DFC. Unfortunately, the applicant cannot recommend his great- uncle for award of the SS or the DFC. WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2007-02598 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01041
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial and states, in part, that although it appears the applicant may have a credible claim, without any verifiable documentation within his military records to indicate that he was formally recommended, or awarded the DFC for the events that occurred on 13 November 1952, they must recommend disapproval based on the guidelines of Section 526 of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02340
The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). The OER for the following period, 20 Aug 68 - 14 Aug 69, reported the member had been awarded the DFC for heroism, as well as AMs with 1- 7OLCs. Neither the applicant’s submission nor her...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01728
It was normal to be awarded the DFC after completing 35 combat missions with the 94th Bomb Group (BG). SAFPC Decorations Board disapproved the applicant’s request and requested additional justification in order to reconsider his request. However, the applicant has not provided any new evidence to SAFPC for consideration.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00417
MRBP states Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 3203 states deeds of "extraordinary heroism" may entitle an enlisted member to received 10 percent additional retired pay. Noting that the Air Force offices of primary responsibility are unable to make a determination based on the limited evidence provided and considering the fact that "extraordinary" determinations are somewhat subjective, we believe reasonable doubt exists in this case as to whether his actions were extraordinary. B J...