Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 04169
Original file (BC 2011 04169.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04169
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive the Valor device to his previously awarded 
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed that his basic award of the DFC was upgraded to 
the DFC w/Valor; however, he did not keep any documentation 
concerning the upgrade.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty in the Air Force from 12 Dec 
61 to 29 Feb 84.

The DFC was established by Congress on 2 Jul 26 and is awarded 
for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in 
aerial flight.  

On 3 Jun 04, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) authorized 
the wear of the Valor "V" Device on DFCs awarded for heroism. 

The applicant was awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement 
on 5 Apr 71.  The applicant was also awarded the DFC, first Oak 
Leaf Cluster for extraordinary achievement on 12 Mar 71.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial.  DPSIDRA was unable to verify 
Special Order G-3294 was amended to show the applicant’s DFC was 
upgraded from extraordinary achievement to heroism.

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.  Heroism or achievement must be 
entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine.  
The DFC is not awarded for sustained operational activities and 
flights.

The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 9 Dec 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a 
response has not been received (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; 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.  The acts of heroism 
and personal sacrifice the applicant endured for our nation is 
noted; however, based on our review of the evidence of record 
and the documentation submitted in support of the appeal, we 
find the evidence insufficient to recommend award of the DFC 
with Valor.  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 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 Docket Number    
BC-2011-04169 in Executive Session on 18 Jan 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 11, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 23 Nov 11.                                                                  
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 11.
    



				Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01828

    Original file (BC-2010-01828.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01828 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant requests that her late father’s records be corrected to reflect his entitlement to the following awards and decorations: 1. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02645

    Original file (BC-2011-02645.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. DPSIDRA has verified the applicant’s entitlement to the World War II Victory Medal (WWIIVM) and will administratively correct his record to reflect this award. The applicant cannot recommend himself for award of the DFC. _________________________________________________________________ THE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01560

    Original file (BC-2011-01560.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01560 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect his award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-02773

    Original file (BC-2009-02773.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS A recommendation for award of the DFC to the applicant was submitted in response to the Air Force Evaluation. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-02773 in Executive Session on 7 Dec 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02645

    Original file (BC 2010 02645.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02645 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His late father and the crew of the “Night Prowler” be entitled to award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for a bombing mission on 15 Jul 45. The aircraft during this 17 hour mission, on 15 Jul 45, was piloted by both the commander and his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01521

    Original file (BC 2014 01521.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01521 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) awarded for his actions on 1-2 May 99 be changed from being awarded for extraordinary achievement to being awarded for extraordinary heroism with award of the valor (“V”) device. There is no documentation in the records to support his characterization of this deployed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03392

    Original file (BC-2010-03392.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03392 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03392...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00299

    Original file (BC 2014 00299.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00299 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His father be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial indicating...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03558

    Original file (BC-2005-03558.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    All elements of a DFC for heroism approved (certificate dated) between 18 September 1947 to 2 June 2004 will not be reaccomplished to reflect “Valor”; nonetheless, individuals with these DFCs are authorized to the wear the “V” device.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR states the applicant was awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement and not heroism. Therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request for the “V” device...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01403

    Original file (BC-2010-01403.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01403 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting that her late husband’s records be corrected to reflect award of: 1. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial...