RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00454

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be 
amended to reflect that he was awarded the Distinguished Flying 
Cross with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster (DFC w/1 BOLC). 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He flew five missions during the 1972 Christmas raids over Hanoi 
and Haiphong.  Other members of his crew received award of the 
DFC but he did not receive his until 10 May 2001.

The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to 
consider his untimely application as he was awarded the DFC in 
2001 and has been trying to get it added since then.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214; letters from the 
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) dated 20 January 
2014 and 10 May 2011 and a letter from his Congressman dated 
12 June 2001.   

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 June 1969, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and 
was honorably released on 26 August 1974.

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.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  The documentation provided by the 
applicant does not support award of the DFC w/1 BOLC to 
reasonably consider his request.  In order to reasonably 
consider the applicant’s request, he needs to submit a 
recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the 
act/achievement, preferably from someone within his chain of 
command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation 
with inclusive dates, and eyewitness statements.  It appears as 
though the DFC mailed to the applicant in 2001 was merely a 
replacement medal and not an additional award.  To grant relief 
would be contrary to the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, 
Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, the Secretary of the 
Air Force and the Chief of Staff. 

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.

In 2011, DPSID received a request from the applicant through the 
NPRC for award of the RVGNC w/P; the DFC w/V and 1 BOLC.  On 
12 July 2011, DPSID replied to the applicant that they were able 
to verify award of the RVNGC w/P but not the DFC w/V and 1 BOLC 
and provided the applicant with requirements to pursue the 
award.

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

AFHRA/RS recommends denial.  There appears to have been no 
injustice perpetrated against the applicant.  The applicant was 
awarded the  Air Medal (AM) w/ 9 OLCs by an Eighth Air Force 
Special Order (G-353) dated 30 July 1973 for his actions on 
26 December 1972.  If the applicant wishes to have the AM w/ 
9 OLC reconsidered and upgraded to a DFC, there are procedures 
in place to do so as outlined in the AFPC/DPSID evaluation.  

The applicant appears to have taken a rumor concerning the 
awarding criteria of DFCs for the Christmas bombings of Hanoi in 
1972 as fact.  In actuality, the rumor is false and no such 
award policy as prescribed by the applicant was ever 
promulgated.   

A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation, w/atch, is at 
Exhibit D.   

SAF/MRBP recommends denial and concurs with the recommendations 
of AFPC/DPSID and AFHRA/RS.  The applicant appears to have 
confused his receipt of a replacement DFC from earlier missions 
as the awarding of a subsequent DFC when that is not the case.  
Additionally, there is no evidence to support that any aircrew 
received a DFC for the Christmas raid missions.  On the 
contrary, the applicant received an AM for his participation in 
general during this period.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He knows crew members who received a DFC for five missions flown 
in the ten day Christmas raids and provides a transcript from 
his flight on 19 December 1972.  This was the most heavily 
defended airspace in the history of aviation.  He cannot tell 
how many crews were flying all the missions but only a few flew 
five missions in those 10 days of the Christmas raids.  Several 
planes and crews were lost during this time.  As the transcript 
shows there were missiles and Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) 
everywhere and anyone flying through it showed exceptional and 
outstanding airmanship to survive the combat five times.  
Despite direct attack from numerous heavy AAA and multiple 
missiles aimed at them, they were able to perform their duties 
and place ordnance on targets.  The entire crew deserves award 
of the DFC for these missions.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  While the 
applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations is noted, he 
has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, 
successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility.  Therefore, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of the AF OPRs and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an 
error or an injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any of 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00454 in Executive Session on 8 July 2015 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 January 2014, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 June 2014.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 30 April 2015, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 21 May 2015.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 June 2015.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.