RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00559
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was recommended for the DFC, 1OLC for a mission he flew on
12 Aug 73. He does not understand why the Pacific Air Forces
(PACAF) stopped giving out awards and decorations when Vietnam
went into a peace-time mode. He would like a written
explanation on why his was denied the award.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
letters, a citation, and flight records.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Available records reflect the applicant served on active duty
from 8 Apr 71 to 21 Jan 76.
The applicant was nominated for the DFC, 1OLC; however, the
PACAF Awards and Decorations Board recommended the award be
disapproved and no lesser decoration be awarded. The award
authority concurred with the recommendation and denied the
decoration. Due to the passage of time, there are no records
available which provided the rationale for denying the
decoration.
The DFC is awarded to any officer and enlisted person of the
Armed Forces of the United States who shall have distinguished
themselves in actual combat in support of operations by heroism
or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial
flight.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states that based upon
the approval authority having authority to approve or disapprove
a decoration recommendation, they were unable to verify an
injustice. In addition, they were unable to locate official
documentation that states what reason the applicant was denied
the DFC, 1OLC. Further, based on their review and the decision
made by the approval authority, they must concur with the
approval authority and recommend denial of this request for an
explanation on the reason why the applicant was denied the DFC,
1OLC.
The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIDR 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 14 May 10 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a
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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in 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 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 Docket Number
BC-2010-00559 in Executive Session on 13 July 2010, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 20 Apr 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01082
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his DD Form 214, his retirement order, his certification of combat flying time and missions and his non-rated individual flight records. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit B. Although we find his actions which led to his award of the Air Medal with one oak leaf cluster commendable, we see no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this case.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01642
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01642 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His military personnel records be corrected to include the following awards, decorations, training courses, and qualifications and his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected appropriately: 1. A...
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 04528
According to the PACAF/DP, the awards board had been directed to consider the two enlisted crew members for SSs. However, the Air Force Decorations Board considered and denied the request. h. On 23 May 84, the new PACAF/CV reviewed the nomination packages and recommended both the enlisted crew members for SS.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00493
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00493 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His deceased fathers records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). DPSIDR located an original recommendation for the DFC dated 20 Aug 44, for the members actions on 11 Jun 44, in his official military record;...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00448
He be awarded an additional Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) to his Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). Therefore, in view of this, we believe it would be in the interest of justice to award him an additional DFC because his remaining 200 combat hours meet the criteria for this recognition. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 18...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03420
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03420 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect: 1. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants military service records, are contained in the evaluation by...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01070
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 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. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04486
and his affidavit, the letter she received from General H., the accounts of this mission by W.S., who flew out of Takhli that day, the affidavit of her father's best friend, the letters from MGen M., and her recollections as a child (her birth certificate verifies kinship, Exhibit N), it is apparent that her father died while trying to save the life of his wingman, Capt B. The applicant provided as evidence a personal affidavit. (Exhibit I) and her father's commander, Col. E.M. (Exhibits L...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01378
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by providing copies of his Individual Flight Record (IFR) that reflects 33 versus 29 missions. We find no evidence the applicant was ever recommended for award of the DFC. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01378 in Executive Session on 19 Jan 11,...