RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
		AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS	

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04289
				COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX (DECEASED)	HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His father (decedent) be entitled to the Distinguished Flying 
Cross (DFC).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The decedent’s chain of command recommended him for award of the 
DFC, which is not reflected in his records.  The applicant 
provides a lengthy resume of the decedent’s history to include 
his personal and family background, military service, service in 
Southeast Asia and recovery efforts.  He also cites numerous 
AFBCMR cases not as binding precedent but rather as 
illustrations to help the Board in making their decision.  The 
applicant does not seek to have the Board take action contrary 
to any law or regulation.  Rather, he merely seeks to have the 
decedent’s record corrected to show that he distinguished 
himself by heroism or extraordinary achievement while 
participating in an aerial flight.

The narrative of the decedent’s Officer Effectiveness Report 
(OER) is the basis of this application.  It contains a statement 
that the decedent had been recommended for the DFC and the Air 
Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters.  Four individuals signed and 
endorsed this OER.  This application meets the Board's standard 
in that it contains sufficient evidence to remove an injustice 
in the decedent’s record.  The applicant respectfully requests 
that the Board serve justice and effectuate the recommendations 
of four senior, experienced combat fighter pilots, each of whom 
had received the DFC, by awarding the decedent the DFC for 
extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial 
flight over North Vietnam.  Any doubt in the consideration of 
this case should be resolved in the decedent’s favor.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
memorandum, copies of the decedent’s DD Form 398, Statement of 
Personal History; DD Form 4, Enlistment Record – Armed Forces of 
the United States; DD Form 13, Statement of Service; AF Form 77, 
Company Grade Officer Effectiveness Report (OER); DD Form 1300, 
Report of Casualty; Special Orders, Aeronautical Orders, aircrew 
roster, individual flight records, Air Medal citations, 
photographs, and various other documents related to his request.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the DD Form 1300 prepared on 17 November 1973, the 
decedent was officially reported missing in action on 24 August 
1968.  He continued in this status until 8 November 1973, the 
date death is presumed to have occurred.


THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  After a thorough review of the 
applicant's official military personnel record, they were unable 
to verify award of the DFC.  The DFC may be awarded to any 
persons who, after 6 April 1917, while serving in any capacity 
with the United States Armed Forces, distinguish themselves by 
heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in 
aerial flight.  The performance of the act of heroism must be 
evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.  
The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an 
accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set 
the individual apart from comrades or from other persons in 
similar circumstances.  Awards will be made only to recognize 
single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not 
be made in recognition of sustained operational activities 
against an armed enemy.

Revised Policy for Award of the DFC, 14 August 1943, Memorandum 
to Theater Commanders, states in order to justify an award of 
the DFC for heroism, the heroism must be evidenced by voluntary 
action in the face of great danger above and beyond the line of 
duty while participating in aerial flight.  To warrant an award 
of the DFC for extraordinary achievement while participating in 
aerial flight, the accomplished must be so exceptional and 
outstanding as to clearly set him apart from his comrades who 
have not been so recognized.  Under the policy stated above, no 
award of the DFC will be made on the basis of hours or missions.

In accordance with Headquarters Army Air Forces Memorandum dated 
21 January 1945; under the revised policy for award of the DFC 
the so-called “routine or score card” basis of award of the DFC 
was officially prohibited as of 14 August 1943.

The applicant's OER for the period 30 April 1969 thru 24 August 
1968, states, "...has resulted in his being recommended for the 
Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf 
Clusters."  In accordance with the Congressional Inquiry dated 
19 September 2012, the decedent’s brothers have previously 
requested award of the DFC on his behalf using the same OER 
mentioned above; however, the Congressional response declared 
the OER alone is not an official award recommendation from the 
recommending official.

There is no evidence in the decedent’s record, nor did the 
applicant present any evidence to support award of the DFC.  The 
applicant provided a proposed citation; however, it does not 
identify any specific reasons such as a single act of heroism or 
extraordinary achievement to justify award of the DFC. 
Therefore, there is insufficient documentation to reasonably 
consider the applicant's request.  Furthermore, the application 
is untimely and should be disapproved on that basis.  To grant 
relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DoD 
Manual 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, the 
Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff, and/or the War 
Department.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFHRA/RS recommends denial.  Although the OER shows intent, 
there is no documentation found in the AFHRA collection of 
official unit histories, or in any of the published orders used 
to announce individual awards by Headquarters Seventh Air Force 
(Special Orders) in all of 1968 that the local squadron followed 
through in submitting a DFC award package for the decedent. 
Moreover, the DFC recommendation supplied by the applicant does 
not provide a specific act of heroism or extraordinary 
achievement warranting the award of the DFC.

The complete RS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial and concurs with the DPSID and AFHRA 
advisories to disapprove award of the DFC.  After review of the 
decedent’s records, submitted supporting documents, and review 
of the DFC criteria, there is a lack of evidence of the 
extraordinary achievement.  Therefore there is not sufficient 
justification or documentation to support award of the DFC.

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E.


The DPSID advisory opinion wrongly concludes: "To grant relief 
would be contrary to the criteria established by DoDM 1348.33, 
the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff, and/or the War 
Department.  His request is fully consistent with the DFC 
criteria that are set in law (and implemented in Air Force 
Instruction by order of the Secretary).  Second, he is not aware 
of any criteria that the Chief of Staff may have established 
concerning the DFC. Third, DoDM 1348.33 has no criteria with 
regard to the DFC.  Fourth, any criteria set by the War 
Department are just not applicable to this case.

It is difficult to accept the position that there is no official 
record showing the recommendation of a DFC.  The OER is clearly 
an official record, and it clearly states that the decedent had 
been recommended for a DFC.  This case is not like others where 
the applicant seeks the award of a DFC where the only evidence 
was the applicant's statement that he was told by his commander 
that he would be recommended for a DFC.  The advisory opinion 
also talks about "requirements," namely a signed recommendation 
from someone, preferably who has firsthand knowledge of the 
applicant's act/achievement.  He is not aware that there are any 
such "requirements." Such a position with regard to 
"requirements" seems to be contrary to the broad authority of 
the Board to affect justice.  In any event, such a "requirement" 
of firsthand knowledge is more apt where there is no evidence in 
an applicant’s personnel file that a recommendation for a DFC 
has been made. That is not the case here.  The decedent was 
recommended for the DFC as reflected in his OER.  These 
uncontroverted facts plus the Board's broad discretionary 
authority permit the award of the DFC in this case.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.


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 evidence of record and the OER submitted 
in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded that relief is 
warranted.  While the applicant contentions are noted, we do not 
find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rational provided by the Air Force Offices of Primary 
Responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force OPR and adopt the rationale 
expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an 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 substantial documentation to support award of 
the DFC, 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 8 July 2014, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

 , Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-04289:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 August 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 January 2014.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 31 January 2014.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 24 March 2014.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 March 2014.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated.