RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04486 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her father’s Defense Flying Cross with one oak leaf cluster (DFC 
w/1 OLC), be upgraded and he be posthumously awarded the Medal of 
Honor (MoH) for his actions on 27 July 1965. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The MoH should have been awarded at the time of her father’s 
death. 

 

Her father was a F-105 fighter pilot who was killed in Vietnam on 
27 Jul 1965. 

 

He served his country in three wars: World War II, Korea and 
Vietnam for a total of 22 years. 

 

After two years as an ensign in the Navy, he became a pilot in the 
Air Force. As a flight commander, he flew 110 combat missions in 
Korea and 31 missions over Vietnam. 

 

During her childhood she was told by her mother that her father 
was killed after a piece of the plane he was flying under fell 
through his cockpit. In 2004, she became aware of exactly how her 
father died. Her mother told her several times there was "another 
medal" that her father deserved. 

 

In Jan 2004, she received a photograph of her father (Exhibit A) 
and a newspaper article that piqued her interest in the events 
that led up to his death (Exhibit B). After conducting extensive 
research to find someone who flew with him on the day he died, she 
located a man named W.K. who was also a F-105 fighter pilot and a 
member of the same squadron her father was in (357th Fighter 
Squadron). He told her that on 27 Jul 1965, he flew on the same 
mission with her father over Hanoi to strike at surface-to-air 
missile (SAM) sights. He said he took off from a base in Karat 
[sic], Thailand ten minutes after her father took off and they 
were joined by approximately 23 F-105s that flew out of a base in 
Takhli, Thailand. He said that her father was in charge of flight 
operations and his wingman was Captain (Capt) B. 

 


In Apr 2005, she received a letter from General C.H. (Exhibit C). 
He stated that her father was trying to “nurse” Capt B.’s plane 
back to safety. W.K. said that a few moments later, Capt B.’s 
plane pitched upward, an explosion occurred and both planes went 
down. He said that Capt B. was later found in his pilot’s seat, 
but he was not aware that her father was killed. 

 

She later spoke to a friend who worked on F-105s in the 1960's, 
and he told her that the loss of hydraulic fluid in the nose area 
probably caused the loss of steering in Capt B.’s plane. 

 

On 2 Aug 2009, she read an article titled “Medals of Honor: Why so 
few?” (Exhibit E). This is when she realized that her father 
might possibly qualify for the MoH if she could prove that he died 
while trying to save the life of Capt B. 

 

On 15 Jan 2012, she received an electronic communiqué from B.S., 
which described in detail, the mission he was on with her father 
(Exhibit F). 

 

On 8 Feb 2010, she sent an electronic communiqué to her father's 
best friend, J.B., who had known her father since 1950. Mr. B. 
was also a pilot in the Korean and Vietnam wars, and she asked him 
what he remembered about her father’s death. He confirmed the 
account in an email the same day, stating that he had found out 
later that her father was underneath Capt B.’s plane, actually 
providing a "push" to his aircraft [to try and help him land 
safely] (Exhibit H). Mr. B. also provided his affidavit, stating 
that her father deserves the "highest award" for his bravery 
(Exhibit I). 

 

On 20 Feb 2010 she received the affidavit from W.K. (Exhibit G). 

 

In Mar 2010, she managed to locate her father's commander at the 
time of his act of “conspicuous gallantry at the risk of his 
life,” 92-year old Major General (MGen) E.M., USAF, Retired. At 
first he could not recall the event, but he remembered after she 
sent him a photograph of him presenting one of her father's medals 
to her younger brother (Exhibit J). 

 

On 16 Apr 2010, MGen M. signed and notarized his endorsement 
recommending the award of the MoH for her father (Exhibit L). 

 

The Department of the Air Force (DAF) then contacted her advising 
her that according to rules and regulations, it appeared that 
awarding the MoH would constitute dual recognition, since her 
father had already received the DFC w/1 OLC. Their request for a 
letter upgrading the DFC w/1 OLC to the MoH was then signed by 
MGen M. on 20 Sep 2010 (Exhibit M). 

 

Based on conversations with W.K. 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. His recognition is long overdue, and he is most 
deserving of the Congressional MoH for his heroic actions. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of newspaper articles, photographs, affidavits, 
electronic communiqués, US Air Force Biography, AF Form 58, Casualty Assistance Summary; Form DS-1350, Certification of Report 
of Birth of a United States Citizen; DD Form 13, Statement of 
Service, award citation, Posthumous Awards letter, Operation 
Spring High execution letter, and various other supporting 
documentation. 

 

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

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The deceased member served on Active Duty from 20 Jan 1943 through 
27 Jul 1965. According to his DD Form 1300, he died in a military 
aircraft accident on 27 Jul 1965, as a result of hostile action. 

 

At the time of his death, the member was assigned to the 357th 
Tactical Fighter Squadron and was on temporary duty (TDY) to the 
6234th Combat Support Group in Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, 
Thailand. 

 

According to sections 3741, 6241, and 8741 of Title 10, United 
States Code (references (m), (n), and (o), respectively), the MoH 
may be awarded to members of the United States (US) Armed Forces 
who distinguish themselves conspicuously by gallantry and 
intrepidity at the risk of their lives above and beyond the call 
of duty under any of the following circumstances: 

 

1. While engaged in an action against an enemy of the US. 

 

2. While engaged in military operations involving conflict with 
an opposing foreign force. 

 

3. While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed 
conflict against an opposing Armed Force in which the US is not a 
belligerent party. 

 

Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be 
exacted and each recommendation for award of this decoration will 
be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states in part the 
applicant's submission does not provide incontestable proof of the 
performance of the service. The evidence appears to be 
contradictory in that some evidence suggests an accident that 
occurred while the applicant was performing a visual check of his 
wingman's aircraft. The applicant provided as evidence a personal 
affidavit. While this document provides an overview of the 
circumstances concerning the applicant's death, it is all second 
hand or even third hand information in regards to the incident. 
The applicant provided several pictures and newspaper articles; 
however, DPSIDR was unable to determine any relevance to the facts 
of the case. 

 

On 15 Nov 2012, the recommendation and supporting documentation 
for the MoH was forwarded to the approval authority, the Secretary 
of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for decision. On 
27 Jun 2011, the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board advised DPSIDR 
that "based on the information received, the Air Force Decoration 
Board has disapproved the MoH award recommendation for the 
applicant’s father." 

 

The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The advisory opinion states that "MoH recommendations must contain 
a minimum of two eyewitness statements." However, it appears that 
the complete list of items for an award recommendation has not 
been followed for all past recipients. In a MoH award presented 
to Marine R.B., it was discovered years later the Board asked for 
only one eyewitness account. Furthermore, MoH awards have been 
granted in the past for a man who saved a woman from a burning 
building and another who saved a ship's cook from drowning. This 
is similar to her father trying to save the life of his wingman. 

 

She is unaware of any information that her father "was submitted 
for" the DFC w/1 OLC, only that he received this award for his 
actions on 27 July 1965. Her original DD Form 149 reflects that 
she requested the following error or injustice in the record be 
corrected to "either upgrade to the MoH or to award the MoH 
separately for her father's efforts in trying to save the life of 
his wingman.” The DFC w/1 OLC was awarded for exceptional flying 
on the day in question, which several other pilots who flew on 
this mission also received. She believes this was why her mother 
asserts that there was "another medal" that her father deserved. 

 

Additional internet research shows that F-105 pilot L.T. received 
both the MoH and the DFC for a SAM mission he flew on 19 Apr 1967. 
Mr. T. is still alive and can verify the chain of command for her 
father's MoH since he was also a member of the 357th. Their 


families were stationed in Germany in 1962 where she and his 
daughter were best friends in the second grade. 

 

The letter from C.H. (Exhibit C) is not an eyewitness account, but 
he was there when it happened. He states, "Up ahead I saw a 
flash, heard a beeper, meaning someone had punched out, when we 
came through there was still a bunch of black smoke in the sky at 
our altitude, the beeper kept broadcasting." Capt B. was able to 
eject, but her father was killed instantly. The electronic 
communiqué from Mr. S. states that he heard about the collision; 
however, it does not discount his entire version of the events 
leading up to the mission and what occurred that day (Exhibit F). 
Mr. S. flew on the mission that day with her father. He still 
feels the pain of that day, which is evident from his writings. 
The affidavit of Mr. W.K. does not reflect everything he told her 
when they first spoke on the phone in Aug 2004; however, he does 
state, "I was 10 minutes behind F.’s flight off our ...,” and “my 
knowledge about the loss of F. and B. was learned through the 
mission debriefing made by S. and W., who witnessed the combined 
explosion of F and B’s aircraft." 

 

The AF Form 58 (Exhibit K) lists the cause of death as "military 
aircraft accident," but she questions “what else could it be?” 
The AF Form 58 also reflects that on 21 Oct 1965, Col. M., the 
commander of the 835th Air Division presented the DFC, Air Medal 
(AM) and Purple Heart (PH) to the family of Major F. Col. M.’s 
affidavit (Exhibit M), clearly states, “In June 1965, I assumed 
command over the 835th Air Division and was the commander over the 
355th Tactical Fighter Wing and the 357th Tactical Fighter 
Squadron. Major F. was in the 357th TFS assigned TDY to the 
6234th Tactical Fighter Wing (provisional). I was the most senior 
supervising commander over Major F. and he was under my direct 
chain of command. Major F. was in my squadron when he was TDY to 
Karat [sic], Thailand in Jul 1965.” The applicant states this 
should be the only chain of command endorsement needed. Mr. L.T. 
is still alive and can also verify the chain of command since he 
was also a member of the 357th. 

 

The pictures and articles relate to the mission flown on 27 July 
1965. They are relevant because they show that the mission did 
occur. There are many accounts and books about the Vietnam War 
that make no mention of this mission because it was “secret” 
(i.e., Robert McNamara's book In Retrospect). 

 

She refers to the letter from General C.H., as well as the 
affidavits from W.K. (Exhibit G), G.B. (Exhibit I) and her 
father's commander, Col. E.M. (Exhibits L and M), and asserts 
there should be no question that her father was trying to save the 
life of Capt B. Mr. W.K. took off ten minutes after her father 
and Mr. H. flew through the black smoke seconds after the 
collision occurred. In addition, her father's remains were 
exhumed on 1 Oct 2011 to verify their existence. A board-
certified licensed pathologist, Dr. S.H., can verify that her 
father died from blunt-force trauma to the head to support the 


claim that he was flying under Capt B. when his plane pitched up 
and struck her father's cockpit. 

 

She does not recall receiving a SAFPC letter, dated 27 Jun 2011, 
advising DPSIDR that the MoH award was disapproved. Her 
congressman supported this effort for a year, until he was elected 
Senator in Nov 2010. 

 

She was not aware that any more supporting documentation was 
needed to submit to SAFPC for their one-time reconsideration. She 
has always felt that the requirements for the MoH were met 
according to a letter dated 28 Aug 2009, stating that a 
recommendation letter from her father's commanding officer was the 
last document they needed (Exhibit B). She would only be required 
to seek recourse from the AFBCMR if she was unable to obtain this 
letter. She was thrilled to locate Col. M., who sent his 
affidavit with his recommendation for the MoH on 16 Apr 
2010 (Exhibit L). He signed another affidavit on 20 Sept 2010 for 
the upgrade (Exhibit M). 

 

Similar to the citation for Mr. L.T., she feels that her father 
should be awarded the MoH "for conspicuous gallantry and 
intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the 
call of duty." Mr. T. is one of only a few living MoH recipients. 
It should be noted that his efforts to destroy MIGs on a SAM 
mission 19 Apr 1967 helped reduce the loss of life during battle, 
but it is doubtful there were witnesses to every flying maneuver 
he made that day. However, he was still deserving of the MoH. 

 

She believes that incontestable proof of her father's performance 
is more than evident to any reasonable person who reviews the 
documents provided. Other members of Congress appear to agree as 
to the merits of this MoH award. Her father's own commander 
verified in his affidavit that he was conducting a "push maneuver" 
to try and help his wingman land safely before they both perished 
in the attempt. Her father laid down his life for his friend. 

 

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 evidence has been presented to demonstrate the 
existence of an error or injustice. It should be noted that this 
Board does not have the authority to award the MoH. However, if 
the evidence warrants, we can make a recommendation to the 
approving authority for consideration of the MoH. After a 


thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission and response to the Air Force advisory, we are 
not persuaded her father’s action on the date in question, 
although commendable, rise to a level to meet the criteria for 
award of the MoH. We note that the recommendation and supporting 
documentation for the MoH was forwarded to the approval authority, 
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), on 
15 Nov 2010, for decision. On 27 Jun 2011, the SAFPC Awards and 
Decorations Board advised DPSIDR that "based on the information 
received, the Air Force Decoration Board has disapproved the MoH 
award recommendation for the applicant’s father." Therefore, we 
agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDR and adopt 
the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision the 
applicant has failed to sustain that her father has suffered 
either an error or an injustice. The personal sacrifice her 
father endured for his country is noted; however, insufficient 
documentary evidence has been presented to warrant recommending 
him for award of the MoH. In the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no 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 Docket Number BC-
2010-04486 in Executive Session on 5 Sep 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04486 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 2010, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 23 Feb 2012, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Mar 2012, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair