RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01840 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________
__ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be entitled to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for a 
mission he flew over Laos (Operation Field Goal). 

 

2. He be entitled to the DFC for a mission he flew during the 
Cuban Missile Crisis. 

 

________________________________________________________________
__ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

It is possible he was not awarded the aforementioned awards due 
to the “Secret” classification, administrative errors, or loss 
of the recommendations. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________
__ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to information provided by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), the applicant served as a pilot in 
the Air Force between 27 Apr 1957 and 25 Jul 1967. 

 

A recommendation for the DFC was submitted for the Cuba Missile 
Crisis mission in accordance with Title 10, U.S.C. Section 1130, 
to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) 
Awards and Decorations Board. The board returned the request 
without action because the package was missing chain of command 
endorsements. 

 

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. The applicant was 
approved for award of the Air Medal (AM) with a second bronze 
oak leaf clusters (w/2OLC) for the Cuban Missile Crisis mission. 

 


On 16 Mar 2010, the request for award of the DFC was 
resubmitted; however, no new evidence or supporting 
documentation was presented in order to reconsider the request. 

 

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. 

 

________________________________________________________________
__ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the SAFPC Awards and 
Decorations Board has considered the request twice and 
disapproved/downgraded the recommendation to an AM. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________
__ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He was very disappointed that DPSID recommended that his request 
for the Cuban Crisis mission be denied. He asserts that DPSID’s 
statement “On 16 Mar 2010, the request for award of the DFC was 
resubmitted; however, no new evidence or supporting 
documentation was presented in order to reconsider the request," 
is not true. He provides additional documentation that was 
submitted through his congressman’s office on 16 Mar 2010 to 
SAFPC. He is astounded that documents have been lost, 
misplaced, or not considered regarding the recommendations for 
his DFCs for the Laos mission and for the Cuban Missile Crisis 
mission. 

 

In Apr 1961 he volunteered to go on a “Secret” mission as a 
reconnaissance pilot. The photographic imagery that he acquired 
on 28 Apr 1961 over the Plain of Jars was of such vital interest 
that he was to be recommended for a DFC for the mission. He was 
later transferred to the United States and had no way of 
checking on the status of the DFC. However, the Photo 


Interpreter who was in Laos said he would resubmit the DFC 
recommendation. 

 

The loss of his DFC recommendation for the Cuban Missile Crisis 
mission was very similar. Shortly after the Cuban Crisis his 
squadron commander transferred and he was also transferred to 
Europe. Shortly after his return to the United States, he was 
separated from the Air Force with a subsequent inter service 
transfer to the Marine Corps. Throughout all the changes in 
status and assignments and the years that passed, he had no idea 
of how he could ever trace the recommendations until he became 
aware that his congressman could assist him. Since then his 
congressman has been assisting him in an effort to receive the 
lost recommendations. He respectfully requests that the Board 
correct his record and entitle him to the DFC for the Laos 
mission and the DFC for the Cuban Crisis mission. In further 
support of his appeal, the applicant provides several Exhibits. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, 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 relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
response to the Air Force evaluation, we are not persuaded the 
requested relief should be granted. Therefore, 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. We note the applicant disagrees with DPSID and 
contends that he did provide new evidence through his 
congressman’s office on 16 Mar 2010 to SAFPC. However, 
according to SAFPC, they previously considered and reviewed both 
DFC requests for the Cuban Missile Crisis mission he submitted 
in 2009 and 2010 and confirmed all documents were included for 
their review and consideration. Regarding his request for the 
DFC for the Laos mission, although he and another pilot provided 
statements on the Laos mission, he has not provided evidence 
that other airmen received the DFC and how it was improper that 
he did not receive the DFC for similar or identical missions 
during the same period. Should the applicant provide the 
evidence noted above we would be willing to review his case for 
possible reconsideration. In view of the above and 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-
2012-01840 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 30 Jul 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Sep 2012, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Acting Panel Chair