RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03644
		INDEX CODE 107.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), he received on 7 Jul 67 for action over North Vietnam be upgraded to the Silver Star Medal (SSM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He participated in an aerial strike on a heavily defended target that resulted in an extremely successful mission. As part of the strike force, he chose to keep his flight in the immediate target area after his attack to allow following strike aircraft to identify their partially obscured target and to cause defensive fire to be diverted from their attack heading. Additionally, he chose to bring his flight back into a heavily defended hostile area to participate in an ensuing mission. In keeping with the criteria which existed for an SSM that prevailed at that time, an SSM was submitted on his behalf for this singular act of personal courage. However, to the best of his knowledge, the award was lost in the Awards and Decorations System at the 7th Air Force and was therefore never processed.

He wants the SSM so that his family can be assured he will be intered at Arlington National Cemetery and because he believes he earned it. [Examiner’s Note: According to Arlington National Cemetery’s eligibility recording at 703/695-3250, the applicant should be eligible for interment because he is retired from the military.]

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 1 Oct 53.  During the period in question, he was a major assigned to the 35th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Yokota AB, Japan, as an assistant operations officer.  From 2 Jun 67 through 12 Jul 67, he was assigned in a temporary duty status to the 357th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Thailand, as an F-105 combat fighter pilot. 

The applicant has received four DFCs for extraordinary achievement on 5 Jul 67, 7 Jul 67 (contested), 11 Jul 67, and 3 Feb 69.  The citation for the 7 Jul 67 DFC 2OLC indicates that near Bac Le, North Vietnam, the applicant “ . . . exhibited tremendous personal courage in drawing anti-aircraft fire to himself which enabled F-105 strike aircraft to hit their target. After departing the target area, he flew protective cover for a disabled F-4C and exhibited exceptional professional skill and aerial ability by maintaining optimum posture in the face of an eminent air attack.” The contested DFC was issued on 2 Oct 67 by the 7th Air Force.

He was promoted to the grade of brigadier general in 1978 and ultimately retired in that grade on 1 Dec 80 with 27 years and 2 months of active service.

On 25 Oct 98, the applicant inquired about the SSM purportedly submitted in his behalf for the 7 Jul 67 action. Apparently, his request was forwarded to HQ USAF/DP. By letter dated 17 Feb 99, the Director, Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison (SAF/LL), advised the applicant that HQ AFPC at Randolph had reviewed his military record but were unable to locate any documentation verifying an upgrade of his DFC 2OLC to the SSM. He was advised to pursue the award under the provisions of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

On 24 Oct 02, the applicant requested Senator McCain’s assistance in upgrading the DFC 2OLC to an SSM. His request was forwarded to SAF/LL and then to the AFBCMR.

Both AFR 900-48 and AFI 36-2803 stipulate the SSM is awarded to an individual for gallantry in action, meaning heroism of a high degree involving risk of life, which does not warrant the Medal of Honor or the Air Force Cross, the two highest awards.  The DFC is awarded for entirely distinctive heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the applicant did not provide any official documentation to substantiate his claim that he was recommended for the SSM for his actions on 7 Jul 67 or any statements from his then chain of command recommending him for the SSM. They believe the applicant received sufficient and appropriate recognition for his extraordinary achievement during combat flights over Vietnam. He has not provided any documentation to substantiate his allegation that the DFC 2OLC recommendation was upgraded to the SSM and submitted to the 7th Air Force for consideration. The criteria for the SSM have not changed between 1967 and this date. An individual cannot recommend himself for a decoration and DPPPR recommends this request be denied. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant advises that there was no congressional involvement in 1998, as erroneously stated in the advisory opinion.  At that time, his request was hand-carried to HQ USAF/DP.  He is not inferring that the criteria have changed; however, the citation for the DFC 2OLC embodies the criteria for the SSM. These elements were accepted practice for an SSM during Rolling Thunder in 1967.  

A complete copy of applicant’s response, 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 to support upgrading the DFC to an SSM. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no persuasive evidence that his action on 7 Jul 1967 was initially, or subsequently, recommended for the SSM.  We conclude that his aerial accomplishment was appropriately recognized with the DFC and, while he may believe it merits the SSM, he has not established that he was recommended or approved for the higher award. Given that the applicant has not shown he suffered either an error or an injustice, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.	Since the applicant’s case is adequately documented and a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to our understanding of the issue involved, his request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 1 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03644 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 26 Nov 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Dec 02, w/atchs.