RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-01762
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Distinguished Flying  Cross  (DFC)  award  with  One  Oak  Leaf  Cluster
(w/1OLC) for  heroism  be  upgraded  to  extraordinary  heroism  and  he  be
authorized a 10 percent increase in his retired pay in accordance  with  the
governing law and regulation.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an oversight and/or misinterpretation of  the  program  criteria,  he
was not considered for the DFC w/1OLC based on  extraordinary  heroism.   He
was assigned duties as a motion picture photographer  to  document  military
actions and not a “combatant;” however, his actions meet  the  criteria  for
the award of an additional 10 percent in his retirement pay.

He was not aware of the program and experienced difficulty  when  trying  to
get information on how he could apply.   As  an  aerial  and  ground  motion
picture photographer, he was involved in several situations and events  that
qualify him for this additional pay.

He received two DFCs for his involvement in the rescue of downed  pilots  in
Vietnam.  His efforts and accomplishments are explained in the citations  of
these awards.  Over  the  past  years,  he  has  developed  several  medical
conditions due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  If his request  is
approved, the pay would not be for any extended length of time and  approval
of the additional retirement pay is not  retroactive;  thereby,  making  his
request cost effective.

In support of the application, the applicant submits his personal  statement
and copies of his DFC awards and citations.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Dec 84, the applicant was honorably discharged from  the  Regular  Air
Force and retired effective 1 Jan 85 in the grade of Chief Master  Sergeant.
 He had served 21 years, 9 months and 23 days on active duty.

On 12 Dec 70, he was awarded the DFC  for  heroism  while  participating  in
aerial flight as  a  photographer  taking  motion  pictures  of  a  recovery
mission in Southeast Asia.

On 13 Dec 70, he was awarded the DFC w/1OLC for heroism while  participating
in aerial flight as a photographer who assisted the rescue of  two  American
pilots.

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  extraordinary  achievement
while participating in aerial flight.  On 2 Apr  09,  the  Deputy  Director,
Personnel Services, advised the applicant that he had  not  been  authorized
the additional 10 percent for retirement pay on his DFC special order.

The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states it appears the reasoning and intent of his initial  request
has  been  misunderstood.   He  reiterates  his  belief   the   recommending
officials of his DFC were not aware of the 10 percent retirement  initiative
at the time and, therefore, did not consider him for it.   He  has  prepared
numerous award nominations and was not aware of the option.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNSEL’S EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends denial.  MRBP states the applicant  flew  as  an  aerial
photographer on HH-53 rescue missions in Southeast Asia on  12  and  13  Dec
70.  During both missions, applicant positioned himself in  the  doorway  of
the helicopter in order to take motion pictures of the recovery missions.

MRPB states it is clear from the two DFC citations his DFC awards  were  for
heroism while  he  performed  the  duties  he  was  assigned  as  an  aerial
photographer and assisted aircrew members when required.

MRBP opines the applicant was appropriately recognized for  his  actions  on
the missions in question.  Based on the documentation provided, his  actions
for which he received the DFC’s do not rise to the  level  of  extraordinary
heroism and do not justify awarding the  additional  10  percent  retirement
pay.

The complete MRBP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNSEL’S EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17  Sep
09, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this  office
has received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   Although  we  find
his actions which led to his award of the  Distinguished  Flying  Cross  and
the Distinguished Flying Cross with First Oak Leaf Cluster  commendable,  we
see no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this  case.   In  this
regard, we took note  of  the  comments  provided  by  the  SecAF  Personnel
Council and agree with their opinion and recommendation that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   In  the  absence  of
persuasive 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  BC-2009-01762  in
Executive Session on 27 October 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 May 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 22 Jun 09.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jul 09.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Sep 09.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 17 Sep 09, w/atch.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair