RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01541 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Medal (AM) be upgraded to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). In addition, all the enlisted members aboard his aircraft who received the AM, should have their awards upgraded to the DFC also. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The officers aboard his aircraft were awarded the DFC; however, the enlisted members received award of the AM. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge; and copies of congressional correspondence. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force effective 23 July 1962 in the grade of airman basic (E-1). He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-4) with a date of rank of 1 June 1966. He was honorably discharged from active duty effective 22 July 1966. He served 4 years on active duty with one year, 5 months, and 27 days of Foreign Service. His separation document shows he was awarded the Air Medal for the period 9 April 1965 through 8 July 1965. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. DPSIDRA states that according to the governing directive, the DFC may be awarded to any persons who, after 6 April 1967, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguished themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. Under the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Section 526, which was enacted into law on 10 February 1996, the original or reconstructed written award recommendation, is required for the recommended individual. The recommendation must be made by someone, other than the member himself, preferably the commander or supervisor at the time of the act of achievement, with firsthand knowledge of the member’s accomplishments. If someone has firsthand knowledge of the applicant’s accomplishments and achievements, he may act as the recommending official. The recommendation must include the name of the decoration (i.e., DFC) reason for the recognition (heroism, achievement, or meritorious service), inclusive dates of the act, and a narrative description of the act. The recommending official must sign the recommendation. Also a proposed citation is required and any chain of command endorsements are encouraged. Any statements from fellow comrades, eyewitness statements attesting to the act, sworn affidavits, and other documentation substantiating the recommendation should be included with the package. DPSIDRA indicates the applicant has not provided a recommendation from someone within his chain of command who has firsthand knowledge of the incident, proposed citation, chain of command endorsements, or eyewitness statements. Furthermore, he cannot recommend himself or the entire enlisted crew for upgrade to the DFC. Additional crew members will need to submit individual recommendations in accordance with the 1996 NDAA rules. The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded that firsthand knowledge of something that happened 45 years ago is hearsay. If the Air Force records cannot be found to document these happenings, then if he was the top Air Force officer, he wouldn’t even think about it. He guessed this was a shot in the dark that justice would be done. He does not know if the scuttlebutt about the DFCs was true. He truly does want this oversight corrected, but only if all of the enlisted members who flew those missions are rewarded. The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for our country is noted; however, insufficient evidence has been presented to warrant award of the DFC. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01541 in Executive Session on 19 January 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01541: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 May 2010, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 23 Jun 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Aug 10.