RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03019

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Silver Star (SS) be upgraded to the Medal of Honor (MOH).

He be awarded the “V” device on his Distinguished Flying Cross 
for heroism on 26 Apr 64. (Administratively Corrected)


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There were unjust restrictions placed on awards and decorations 
for covert operations during the early days of the Vietnam War 
(1963 to 1964).  

He had only seen the unclassified citation for the SS until 
recently and was unaware of the documented results of the combat 
missions flown by him on 25 Jun 64.  

The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to 
consider his application based on the verified results on the DD 
Form 173, Joint Message Form, dated 24 Jul 64 (now 
unclassified).  There was an injustice as a greater risk of life 
above and beyond the call of duty occurred, verified enemy 
losses for one day of combat and the assessed damage to his 
aircraft would indicate a higher award should have been 
submitted.  

In a letter dated 14 Mar 11, the Commander of the 1st Air 
Commando Squadron in Vietnam at the time states he wrote the 
“Blue Cube” recommendation for the SS.  At the time, the 
Commander of the 34th Tactical Group and endorser of the award 
felt the magnitude and scope of the applicant’s heroic action 
exceeded the criteria for entitlement to the MOH.  However, 
there was an unwritten policy that covert operations would be 
restricted to the SS to avoid publicity.  He stated that there 
was a huge discrepancy as several Top Secret citations existed 
to protect secondary parties.  The heroic actions of the 
applicant displayed on 25 Jun 64 warrant award of the MOH.  The 
applicant’s actions achieved what previous to 23 and 24 Jun 64 
had not been accomplished and with the loss of two aircraft.  
Unequivocally, the applicant displayed and exceeded the minimal 
criteria for award of the MOH.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of DD 
Form 173, a letter of support and various other documents 
associated with his request. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 16 Dec 56 and was 
retired on 30 Jun 76 in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). 

Per Special Order GB-197 dated 4 Aug 64, the applicant was 
awarded the SS for gallantry while serving with friendly foreign 
forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed 
force on 25 Jun 64.  

His DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 28 Aug 12, amended 
his record to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying 
Cross with Valor (DFC w/V). 

On 31 Oct 11, the applicant requested his case be 
administratively closed until he was able to proceed (Exhibit 
E).  

On 20 Feb 12, the applicant requested his case be re-opened 
(Exhibit G).  He states the correction of his records was also 
being pursued through Congressional channels and he would submit 
this information to the Board.  The applicant submitted his 
request for award of the MOH through his Congressman on 6 Aug 
14 (Exhibit K).  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  The applicant requests his SS be 
upgraded to the MOH; however, the letter provided requests the 
applicant be reconsidered for the MOH.  There is no indication 
that the applicant was initially recommended for the MOH and 
disapproved or downgraded to the SS.  The MOH recommendation as 
provided, if approved, would constitute dual recognition as he 
has already been recognized for his actions on 25 Jun 64 with 
award of the SS.  The recommendation package does not include a 
proposed citation, chain of command endorsements or eyewitness 
statements to support the request, nor was the request submitted 
through Congressional channels.

The MOH is the highest and most prestigious U.S. military medal.  
It is awarded by the President of the United States in the name 
of Congress.  The MOH may be awarded to members of the U.S. 
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 action against an enemy of 
the United States, (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 for which the United 
States is not a belligerent party.  The deed performed must have 
been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as 
to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades 
and must have involved risk of life.  It is necessary that there 
is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Service member 
performed the valorous action for which they were recommended 
for the MOH.  While MOH criteria include a requirement for the 
Service member to risk his or her life, there is no requirement 
for the member to be wounded or killed in order to meet the 
“risk of life” portion of the MOH criteria.

Under the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA), Section 526, which was enacted into law on 10 Feb 96, 
the original or reconstructed written award recommendation is 
required for the recommended individual.  The recommendation 
must be made by someone, other than the member himself, 
preferably the commander or supervisor at the time of the act of 
achievement, with firsthand knowledge of the member’s 
accomplishments.  If someone has firsthand knowledge of the 
applicant’s accomplishments and achievements, he may act as the 
recommending official.  The recommendation must include the name 
of the decoration, reason for recognition (heroism, achievement 
or meritorious service), inclusive dates of the act, and a 
narrative description of the act.  The recommending official 
must sign the recommendation and a proposed citation is 
required; any chain of command endorsements are encouraged.  Any 
statements from fellow comrades, eyewitness statements attesting 
to the act, sworn affidavits, and other documentation 
substantiating the recommendation should be included with the 
package.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a letter dated 10 Jan 14, the applicant states his Form 5, 
Pilot Individual Flight Record, shows he flew three combat 
missions on 25 Jun 64.  The facts of that day were validated by 
the squadron commander of the T-28/A1E Section of the 1st Air 
Commando Squadron and the Commander of the 34th Tactical Group.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit I.   


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends the Air Force Decorations Board determine 
if the documents submitted are enough to consider the applicant 
for the MOH.  Should the decorations board determine the  
nomination package is sufficeint, the applicant’s request would 
be processed to the Secretary of the Air Force for consideration 
of the award of the MOH.  Should the MOH be awarded, the SS will 
require revocation to preclude dual recognition of the 
applicant’s achievements of 25 Jun 64.  Should the decorations 
board find the documentation an incomplete nomination package, 
the decorations board would advise what documentation is 
required and appropriate response be provided to the applicant.  

The applicant requests his SS be upgraded to the MOH; however, 
there is no indication the applicant was initially recommended 
for the MOH and disapproved or downgraded to the SS.  The MOH 
recommendation provided, if approved, would constitute dual 
recognition as the applicant has already been recognized for his 
actions on 25 Jun 64 with award of the SS.  The recommendation 
package does include a proposed citation submitted through a 
Congressional office and a nomination for the MOH signed by the 
applicant’s commander on 25 Jun 64.  It does not contain chain 
of command endorsements or eyewitness statement(s) to support 
the request.

A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit J. 

SAFPC recommends denial.  There is no additional information 
provided further amplifying the applicant’s actions on 25 Jun 
64.  The approving authority at that time felt the SS was the 
appropriate recognition for his actions.  Additionally, the 
applicant has not substantiated the contention of an “unwritten 
policy” regarding limitations on award types, and has provided 
no evidence to corroborate his contention.  

The applicant has submitted the request for consideration 
through 10 U.S.C. § 1130, consideration of proposals for 
decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion.  He 
contends that at the time of his actions there was an unwritten 
policy that covert/special operations would be restricted to the 
SS to avoid publicity and that policy originated from the 
Secretary of Defense; however, there is no evidence to support 
the contention.  Furthermore, the nomination citation included 
in the nomination for the MOH does not contain any additional 
information not already provided in the “Blue Cube” message that 
was considered when awarding the SS to the applicant.  


A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit L.     


APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Until four years ago he had only received the unclassified 
citation for award of the SS.  He learned recently he was given 
credit for killing 400 Vietcong soldiers while saving the lives 
of 30 friendly forces plus preventing the overrun of three 
Special Forces outposts.  The colonel conducting the research of 
his SS told him that he had read most of the MOH cases from WWII 
and the Korean War and that no one had achieved results like he 
had.  

The Air Force evaluation dated 21 Aug 14, states the 
recommendation must be made by the squadron commander or 
supervisor who at the time had firsthand knowledge of the facts 
surrounding the event.  He provides letters from his commanders 
at the time who state that there was a problem with trying to go 
for anything higher than a SS at the time based on information 
received from 7th Air Force.  Both of these individuals had 
intimate knowledge of the facts surrounding the results of his 
three combat missions on 25 Jun 64.  

In regards to the timeliness of the application, it is true he 
knew nothing about the original Blue Cube process until he 
received the SS three months later in 1964 while stationed at 
Kadena AB.  It was also not until a copy of the DD Form 173 was 
available that he decided to submit the request for upgrade to 
the MOH.  At that time in the Vietnam War (1963-1964) everything 
he did was classified.

He hopes the Board will reconsider the facts as they occurred in 
combat on 25 Jun 64 as the nominating commander indicated in the 
Blue Cube recommendation.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit N.


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 evidence and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us 
that the applicant’s service records should be corrected to 
award the MOH.  While we are not certain of whether the 
applicant performed acts worthy of recognition by the MOH vice 
the SS, he has not provided substantial evidence to show that he 
has been the victim of error or injustice.  The applicant states 
that his quest for the medal upgrade began after being contacted 
by a colonel conducting research on awards and decorations 
presented to American servicemen in 1963-64 and that he was 
advised by the colonel to submit an application to the BCMR.  
However, none of the research work included supports that there 
may have been a problem in the recognition of the acts of 
service members in Vietnam from 1963-64 which may have been 
helpful.  Nevertheless, we are left with the retrospective view 
of the initiator of the award almost 50 years later.  In our 
view, it would seem reasonable that if the applicant or the 
commander thought an injustice had been done, they should have 
pursued this sooner, even considering the classified submission 
was not downgraded until 25 years later, especially since they 
claim there was an "unwritten policy" restricting the level of 
award that could be sought.  There is much more information 
needed to support this appeal and since the AFBCMR is not an 
investigative agency, we conclude the applicant has not 
sustained his burden of showing he is the victim of error or 
injustice. The applicant’s personal sacrifice and unselfish 
service to his country is noted and our decision in no way 
lessens our regard for his service; however, without sufficient 
documentation to substantiate his request, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  In 
the absence of evidence to the contrary we find no basis to 
grant the requested relief.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 Docket 
Number BC-2011-03019 in Executive Session on 23 Jun 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member
 
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03019 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 22 Jul and 22 Aug 11, 
w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Sep 11.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 11.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Oct 11.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Oct 11.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Feb 11 [sic].
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Feb 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit L.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Aug 14.
	Exhibit M.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit N.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jun 14, w/atchs.