ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01840
XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He be entitled to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for a
mission he flew during the Cuban Missile Crisis on 12 November
1962.
2. He be entitled to the DFC for missions he flew over Laos in
support of Operation Field Goal during the period 23 April 1961
to 28 May 1961.
3. By letter dated 23 January 2014, the applicant amended his
request for entitlement to the Air Medal instead of the DFC for
missions he flew over Laos in support of Operation Field Goal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 26 February 2013, the Board considered and denied a similar
appeal. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicants requests and the rationale of the
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at
Exhibit F.
On 23 January 2014, the applicant submitted a request for
reconsideration which includes evidence the Board previously
invited him to provide. The evidence includes DFC citations from
pilots who flew similar/identical missions during the Cuban
Missile Crisis during the same period. In the case of Operation
Field Goal, the applicant states that only he and another member
flew these missions during the period 23 April 1961 to 28 May
1961, and the other pilot received an Air Medal for these
missions. Accordingly, he requests the evidence he provides be
given due consideration for award of the DFC during the Cuban
Missile Crisis on 12 November 1962 and the Air Medal for missions
he flew over Laos in support of Operation Field Goal during the
period 23 April 1961 to 28 May 1961.
The DFC is awarded to any officer or enlisted person of the Armed
Forces of the United States who distinguished himself in actual
combat in support of operations by heroism or extraordinary
achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent
to 11 Nov 1918.
The AM is awarded to U.S. military and civilian personnel for
single acts of heroism or meritorious achievements while
participating in aerial flight and foreign military personnel in
actual combat in support of operations. Required achievement is
less than that required for the DFC, but must be accomplished
with distinction above and beyond that expected of professional
airmen.
In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal
statement, copies of citations, memorandums, special orders, and
various other documents related to his appeal.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit G.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was
insufficient evidence to warrant award of the DFC. The Board
advised the applicant that if he submitted additional evidence
that other airmen received the DFC for similar or identical
missions during the same periods, they would be willing to
reconsider his requests. After a thorough review of his
submission, we are persuaded that an injustice occurred and the
applicants request should be approved. The following evidence
will show that despite flying similar or identical missions as
the other pilots, he did not receive the same awards. In
response to the Boards invitation, the applicant provided
additional documentation in support of his request for award of
the DFC for missions flown during the Cuban Missile Crisis on
12 November 1962. We note that his flight record for the period
October through December 1962, reflects that he flew RF-101s on
12 November 1962 while he was assigned to the XXX Tactical
Reconnaissance Wing (TRW). According to an Air Force Historical
Research Agency (AFHRA) Cuban Missile Crisis Fact Sheet, the
XXX TRW played an important part in the Cuban Missile Crisis
utilizing their RF-101 aircraft for low-altitude photo-
reconnaissance missions. The applicant also provides DFC
citations from individuals who flew similar or identical
missions. In view of the foregoing we find the DFC citations
coupled with the AFHRAs fact sheet sufficient to recommend award
of the DFC for missions he flew during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
We also note that the applicant has amended his request to be
awarded the Air Medal instead of the DFC for missions he flew
over Laos in support of Operation Field Goal. The applicant
states that he was one of two pilots who flew reconnaissance
missions in support of Operation Field Goal during the period
23 April 1961 to 28 May 1961, and provides a witness statement
from a pilot who received the Air Medal for the same period and
attests that the applicant flew these reconnaissance missions
with him. Moreover, his military personnel record includes
numerous references to his combat participation in Laos/Vietnam
in support of Operation Field Goal. In view of the foregoing and
in order to offset an injustice, we are convinced that he was
deserving of the requested awards. Therefore, in the interest of
justice, we recommend providing relief as indicated below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. The Air Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster he was awarded on
12 November 1962, be upgraded to the Distinguished Flying Cross
for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial
flight.
b. He was awarded the Air Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster,
for meritorious achievement, while participating in aerial
flights during the period 23 April 1961 to 28 May 1961.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 3 April 2014, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the record as recommended. The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2012-01840 was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 13 March 2013,
w/Exhibits.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 January 2014, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01840
The applicant's chain of command resubmitted the recommendation, however, on 22 Sep 2009, the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board determined, that although the recommendation was commendable, it did not meet the requirements for the DFC. DPSID states the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board has considered the request twice and disapproved/downgraded the recommendation to an AM. Regarding his request for the DFC for the Laos mission, although he and another pilot provided statements on the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00244
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00244 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His father be awarded the following awards: Good Conduct Medal (GCM); Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFHRA admits they missed finding records on four of his fathers missions, one of those missing recorded...
The pilot of the 25 August 1972 mission recommends the applicant be awarded the DFC and states that during the mission the applicant played an extraordinary role in pre-planning, coordinating and ensuring the success of reconnaissance and air strikes. As such, they believe he received sufficient recognition for his achievement during aerial flight. Of the Airborne Interpreters who participated in the Rustic Operation, the applicant is one of only two individuals who did not receive at...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00454
The applicant contends his request through his Congressman in 2001 resulted in being awarded the DFC w/1 BOLC; however, a letter from the NPRC to his Congressman, on behalf of the applicant, states they verified entitlement to the requested medals and awards on the DA Form 1577, Authorization for Issuance of Awards, which includes a basic award of the DFC but no annotation of a DFC w/1 BOLC. The applicant was awarded the Air Medal (AM) w/ 9 OLCs by an Eighth Air Force Special Order (G-353)...
The pilot of the 1 December 1971 mission recommends the applicant be awarded the DFC, 1 OLC, and states that due to the applicant’s quick and accurate interpretation of the Cambodian Ground Commander’s requests during the mission, they were able to place seven separate sets of fighters in and around Kampong Thma as close as 100 meters of the friendly forces, preventing the overrun of the city and saving the lives of many friendly Cambodian troops. Applicant’s complete submission, with...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although the 1 October 1970 mission may have been classified at the time, the proposed citation is entirely unclassified, except for identying the enemy territory as Combodia, and was unclassified at that time. AFPC/DPPPR does not believe sufficient justification has been provided to show that the applicant was not recommended for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021777
Counsel also states the applicant and this warrant officer were both involved in the same action on the night of 6 November 1965. The DA Form 638 and statement submitted in support of award of the DFC for CW4 K _ _ _ _ _ stated as the A/C of a UH-1D Helicopter flying lead of a flight of three returning from an earlier day-long mission when they received an emergency radio call advising that a cavalry unit was under nearly overwhelming enemy fire. In a letter, dated 16 October 2009, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03117
They state, in part, that based upon the criteria used in 1943 there is no basis for any award. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the Congressman McIntyres office, on behalf of the applicant, via electronic mail (email) on 12 Aug 13 for review and comment within 30 days. Although official documents do reference the co-pilot being wounded, there...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01922
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01922 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Medal (AM), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVCM). Neither the applicants submission or his military personnel records contain enough official documentation...