RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01303
				INDEX CODE:  107.00
	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Distinguished  Flying Cross (DFC), awarded  for actions on 23 Sep 70, be upgraded to the Silver Star Medal (SSM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for the SSM, but it was erroneously downgraded to a DFC by administrative personnel at the support squadron because of a misunderstanding about the criteria for SSM.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty from 19 Oct 66 - 10 Feb 72.  He served in Viet Nam from 15 May 70 - 7 Mar 71.  He was awarded the Air Medal (AM) with 8 Oak Leaf Clusters and the DFC with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters for his aerial achievements.

He received the basic DFC for actions on 23 Sep 70, the first oak leaf cluster for actions on 16 Dec 70, and he received the second oak leaf cluster for actions on 16 Sep 70.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states that on 25 May 01, they requested the applicant provide a copy of the citations to the basic DFC and all the Air Medals.  The applicant furnished a copy of his basic DFC citation and a certificate for the first through eighth oak leaf clusters to the AM.  On 27 Jul 01, DPPPR forwarded the case to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for determination of the applicant's request for upgrade of his DFC to SSM.  The SAFPC denied the request on 7 Aug 01.  Further there is no indication in the applicant's records that he was recommended for the SSM, and he has not provided any supporting documentation to substantiate his claim.  The applicant has not provided any documentation that the SSM was downgraded to a DFC.  DPPPR recommends denying the applicant's request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that Col L. signed his OER dated 24 Jan thru 6 Jan 70.  He also states the DFC was submitted as a SS, but a young Lt., who was the DECS officer, informed them that in order for the action to be submitted for a SS the aircraft had to have been hit or the pilot wounded.  The Lt. submitted the SS as a DFC because neither the plane nor the pilot was hit or wounded.  He did not find about the error until he attended the All FAC Reunion in 2000.

Applicant's complete response 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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  We believe it should be pointed out that the applicant's decorated service and sacrifice for his country has not gone unnoticed.  Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that the applicant met the established criteria to upgrade his DFC to a SSM.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 probable 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 4 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 4 May 01, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 14 Aug 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Aug 01.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, undated.

					
					Panel Chair