AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04528 
 
			COUNSEL:  NONE 
 
  			HEARING DESIRED:  YES  
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  His Distinguished Flying Cross First Oak Leaf Cluster     (DFC w/1OLC) be upgraded to a Silver Star (SS) medal. 
 
2.  He be awarded the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) (Administratively corrected).   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He was unjustly denied award of the SS for the following reasons: 
 
1.  In 1969, his wing leadership was in the best position to know what happened on a mission he participated in during the Vietnam War, and they chose to upgrade the DFC nomination packages for all four nominated crew members involved in the mission to SSs.  His leadership at the time believed he deserved the SS.   
 
2.  Both the pilot and co-pilot on the mission in question received SSs, but the SS nomination packages for the two nominated enlisted crew members (the applicant was the Assistant Crew Chief) were lost and they did not initially receive any awards.  The applicant and his Crew Chief eventually received decorations in 1984, but they were DFCs instead of SSs.   
 
3.  In May 84, when they were directed to resubmit their original DFC nomination packages, the PACAF/CV reviewed the DFC nominations and agreed the decorations should be SSs.   
 
4.  The mission was highly classified and covert.  Due to the classification of the mission, the awards board did not understand the true impact of the gallant and courageous actions of the crew.   
 
5.  All four members of the crew should have received the same awards because they worked as a team, and not as individuals.  The position of the two enlisted members was more dangerous than the officers due to their being exposed on the helicopter skids while the pilots were safer in the armor plated cockpit. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 25 Feb 66.  
 
On 20 Feb 69, near Duc Lap, Republic of Vietnam, the applicant and his crew were called upon to rescue a long range reconnaissance patrol that was surrounded and in danger of being overrun by a hostile force.  During the four to five minute precarious 20-foot hover, the applicant exposed himself in the open doorway of his helicopter in order to guide the pilot into the landing zone and to assist the patrol in boarding the aircraft despite the hostile ground fire.  He also manned the   M-60 machine gun to suppress enemy fire.  At one point, the applicant unhooked himself from his safety strap and moved along the helicopter skid unharnessed to assist the co-pilot by closing his cockpit door, which had been blown open by the concussion of an explosion.  During the helicopter’s ascent, the applicant provided accurate guidance instructions to the pilot to ensure the dangling 25-foot long rope ladders did not become ensnared in the tall trees tightly surrounding the landing zone.   
 
On 8 Dec 69, the applicant was Honorably discharged and was credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 14 days of active service. 
 
On 28 Feb 14, AFPC/DPSIDR administratively corrected the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to reflect that he was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster (PUC w/1BOLC), and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with four Bronze Service Stars (VSM w/4BSS) instead of the VSM (basic award).   
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The SS is the third highest military valor decoration that can be awarded to a person serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces.  The SS may be awarded to any individual while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces who distinguishes himself or herself by gallantry in action under any of the following circumstances:  while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or, while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in an action in which the United States is a belligerent party.  The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the Medal of Honor or the Air Force Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.  A thorough review of the applicant’s official military personnel record revealed no signed recommendation for the SS, proposed citation, eyewitness statements attesting to the gallantry of the applicant’s actions or endorsement for the SS from his chain of command.  The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) has previously denied similar requests from the applicant, as noted in response letters to the applicant’s Congressman, dated 12 Jul 84 and 24 Jul 84.  In the response letters, SAFPC stated the applications did not meet the requirement for the SS.  It does not appear any new and relevant documentation was provided with this application that was not previously submitted by the applicant and considered by SAFPC.   
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFHRA/RS does not make a recommendation, but presents a chronology of events of the case, examines the difference between the DFC and SS criteria, provides a historical perspective of Award board authorities, and addresses what he perceives to be misperceptions in the application.   
 
1.  The following is a chronology of events of the case: 
 
  a.  On 20 Feb 69, the mission in question was accomplished.   
 
 b.  Upon return from the mission, the crew’s squadron commander (SQ/CC) nominated the four members of the flight crew (Pilot, Copilot, Crew Chief, and Assistant Crew Chief        (the applicant)) for DFCs based upon their actions on 20 Feb 69.  The 14th Special Operations Wing Vice Commander (XX SOW/CV) directed the DFC nominations be upgraded to SS nominations.  The pilot and copilot were subsequently awarded SSs, but the award packages for the Crew Chief and Assistant Crew Chief (the applicant) were lost, and they initially did not receive any awards or decorations for the mission.  
 
 c.  On 7 Jan 83, after an inquiry from the applicant’s Congressman, the applicant’s SQ/CC from 1969 reaccomplished the DFC nomination packages for the two enlisted crewmembers and submitted them to HQ PACAF in compliance with guidance from the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for Legislative Liaison (SAF/LL).  The SQ/CC also submitted an affidavit explaining that the original DFC nominations had been upgraded to SS nominations in 1969. 
 
 d.  On 28 Feb 83, the PACAF/CV reviewed the nomination packages and recommended the two enlisted members for DFCs.   
 
 e.  On 15 Apr 83, under Special Order GB-265, the applicant and the Crew Chief were awarded DFCs for heroism while participating in aerial flight by Department of the Air Force.  According to the PACAF/DP, the awards board had been directed to consider the two enlisted crew members for SSs.   
 
 f.  On 25 May 83, the applicant’s Congressman submitted a request to the President of the United States on behalf of the applicant and the Crew Chief, seeking to have their DFCs upgraded to SSs.  However, the Air Force Decorations Board considered and denied the request.  
 
 g.  On 8 Apr 84, the Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC) notified the applicant a nominating official had up to one year from the time of denial of an award to resubmit additional information through the original processing channels---in this case, the PACAF/DP.  Subsequently, the by-then retired former SQ/CC resubmitted the award nomination packages to PACAF seeking upgrade of the DFCs to SSs.  It is notable that the pilot did not participate in the 1984 submission to upgrade the DFC to the SS.  It is not known why he did not participate.  He may have disagreed with award of the SS, or he may have passed away by this time.    
 
 h.  On 23 May 84, the new PACAF/CV reviewed the nomination packages and recommended both the enlisted crew members for SS.   
 
 i.  On 19 Jul 84, SAFPC disapproved the request to upgrade the DFCs, stating that the event did not meet the criteria for the SS.  
 
 j.  On 12 Dec 03, the applicant’s Crew Chief applied to the AFBCMR with virtually the same application package, requesting his DFC be upgraded the SS.  The request was referred to SAFPC, where it was denied. 
 
 k.  On 30 Sep 13, the applicant submitted the current application to the AFBCMR to have his DFC upgrade to a SS.  In this application, he included a section entitled “Resume of the Case.” This section  contains a number of errors, misperceptions, and consequently incorrect conclusions, perhaps due to the dimming of memory with the passage of time.   
 
2.  Air Force Manual (AFM) 900-3, Decorations, Service Awards, Unit Awards, Special Badges, Favorable Communications, Certificates, and Special Devices, which was in force in Feb 69, states:   
 
 a.  The Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) is awarded for either heroism or extraordinary achievement.  For heroism, it is awarded for heroism while participating in aerial flight, and serving in any capacity with the Air Force.  Heroism must be entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine.   
 
 b.  The Silver Star (SS) is awarded for gallantry in action that does not warrant a Medal of Honor or the Air Force Cross, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force, while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or, while serving with friendly forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  There is a footnote to this standard in the AFM that reads: “Gallantry in action means heroism of high degree involving risk of life.”  It appears the difference between these two awards is found in the difference between heroism and gallantry.  The courage shown by the applicant meets the criteria for “gallantry in action” as called for in the criteria for the Silver Star.   
 
3.  Table 3-1 of AFM 900-3 states, concerning award of the SS, “the authority is delegated down to commanders of numbered air forces during wartime for awards to US military personnel,” and Table 3-4 adds “If the decoration is the Silver Star, special approval authority for Southeast Asia is exercise by PACAF and 7AF.”  Because the original 1969 award packages were lost for the two enlisted crew members, the opportunity for either 7AF or PACAF award boards to review the original award packages and make a final decision was prevented.  In 1983, the award packages were reconstituted by the original submitters and submitted to the approval authority at that time, through PACAF and to the Department of the Air Force.  Had the award packages only needed to be sent to 7AF or PACAF in 1969, it is more likely that the recommendations would have been approved.  In 1984, the PACAF/CV, with additional information, reversed his predecessor’s decision and recommended the two enlisted crew members be awarded the SS.  If that decision had been made in 1969 at the PACAF level, as it was in 1984, both of these men would have been bestowed the SS medal along with their pilots.   
 
4.  Although the application includes new eyewitness accounts of the 20 Feb 69 mission, written many years later, these additional accounts only substantiate the original narratives, but bring little new information that would increase or decrease the SS criteria of “gallantry in action” on the part of the applicant.  In addition, the applicant suggests that the 7AF Awards Board may not have known all the facts of the case because it was classified.  In actuality, the 7AF would have had highly placed representatives from all over to review these awards, and an award of the SS would have been very specifically reviewed for its appropriateness.    The applicant also suggests there may have been a limit to the number of SS recommendations allowed, or that 7AF would not accept SS recommendations for enlisted personnel.  However, there was no limit to the number of SS medals awarded during the Vietnam War, and numerous SS medals were bestowed upon enlisted personnel who met the criteria.  Finally, the applicant raises an old argument that everyone on the crew should get the same award because the crew acts as a team and therefore no one is more important than the other.  This is simply not true.  Each man on this mission had his particular part to play, but in the end, the pilot in command made the hard decision.  The pilot of the helicopter chose to hover for almost five minutes while under direct fire.  Were the actions of the applicant worthy of award of the SS?  One can make a strong case to grant or deny.   
 
A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. 
 
SAF/MRBP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  After review of the individual’s records, the submitted supporting documents, the criteria for the DFC and SS, as well as the background information provided by the Archivist from AFHRA, it is evident the applicant did not provide any new/relevant information, or show how an injustice occurred which would warrant consideration of his request for an upgrade to the SS.   
 
A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
He addresses many of the comments from the AFHRA/RS advisory.  He cites three prior BCMR cases which he states address classification relevancy (BC-2001-01303, BC-2003-00916, and     BC-2007-01304).  He takes exception to the AFHRA statement that the mission pilot did not participate in the 1984 awards submission, stating that the pilot resubmitted the original statement and added an additional statement.  He takes exception to the AFHRA statement that the awards board members had all the necessary information, citing the fact that some other Government agencies still have not declassified all the related information associated with their mission and stating “there probably is something (they) did not know.”  He takes exception to the AFHRA statement that time has dimmed the memories of the applicants.  Additionally, he argues that the crew did more than what they were trained and prepared to do on this mission.  He feels it was the crew that made the decision that the pilot could complete the mission and questions whether the pilot would have remained on site so long without relying on their advice.  Finally, he feels an injustice was done by not recognizing and accepting the statements of the commanding and supporting personnel at the time, who have stated the Crew Chief and Assistant Crew Chief deserve SSs (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.  A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of an error or injustice.  The Board took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluations; however, a majority of the Board agrees with the opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DPSID and SAFPC and adopts their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The majority does not agree with the applicant’s assertion that all members on the same crew warrant the same decoration by virtue of having served together on the same mission.  Each individual’s actions must be independently evaluated, to include understanding the authorities and responsibilities associated with each member’s duties.  While the majority acknowledges that the applicant’s leadership sincerely believed he deserved to receive the SS, the majority is of the view that the very reason there is an award nomination and board process for our Nation’s highest awards is to ensure that qualified senior leadership applies independent judgment rather than allowing such significant decisions to be made at the local level.  The Board also does not believe the classified nature of the 1969 mission in any way limited the ability of award evaluators in determining the appropriate award for the applicant as the applicant contends.  The declassification of most of the information surrounding the mission over the years has not altered the final assessment of ensuing evaluators, each of whom denied the applicant’s upgrade request.  Finally, the Board notes that over the 45-plus years since the mission was flown, the applicant and his Crew Chief have repeatedly attempted to have their DFCs upgraded to SSs, and therefore the details of the mission have been carefully evaluated against the criteria for the SS by knowledgeable and professional personnel at the MAJCOM, Headquarters Air Force, and SAFPC, and the Crew Chief’s AFBCMR application has been reviewed by SAFPC.  Each review ultimately resulted in denial.  Given the fact that the current application does not contain any additional evidence which was not thoroughly evaluated by one or more of the aforementioned organizations, the majority of the Board is not persuaded by the evidence presented that it would be appropriate to simply substitute its judgment at this late date for judgment of the multiple organizations tasked with making these critical decisions.  While the Board holds the applicant in the highest esteem due to his unquestioned bravery and selfless service to the Nation, the majority of the Board finds no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
 
4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS: 
 
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04528 in Executive Session on 11 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 
 
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  Ms. Hickman voted to correct the records and has submitted a minority report, which is attached at Exhibit H.  The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 13, w/atchs. 
 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
 Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 28 Feb 14. 
 Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 23 May 14, w/atch. 
 Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 7 Jul 14. 
 Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14. 
 Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch. 
 Exhibit H.  Minority Report, dated 29 Sep 14.