RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04486 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her father’s Defense Flying Cross with one oak leaf cluster (DFC w/1 OLC), be upgraded and he be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor (MoH) for his actions on 27 July 1965. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The MoH should have been awarded at the time of her father’s death. Her father was a F-105 fighter pilot who was killed in Vietnam on 27 Jul 1965. He served his country in three wars: World War II, Korea and Vietnam for a total of 22 years. After two years as an ensign in the Navy, he became a pilot in the Air Force. As a flight commander, he flew 110 combat missions in Korea and 31 missions over Vietnam. During her childhood she was told by her mother that her father was killed after a piece of the plane he was flying under fell through his cockpit. In 2004, she became aware of exactly how her father died. Her mother told her several times there was "another medal" that her father deserved. In Jan 2004, she received a photograph of her father (Exhibit A) and a newspaper article that piqued her interest in the events that led up to his death (Exhibit B). After conducting extensive research to find someone who flew with him on the day he died, she located a man named W.K. who was also a F-105 fighter pilot and a member of the same squadron her father was in (357th Fighter Squadron). He told her that on 27 Jul 1965, he flew on the same mission with her father over Hanoi to strike at surface-to-air missile (SAM) sights. He said he took off from a base in Karat [sic], Thailand ten minutes after her father took off and they were joined by approximately 23 F-105s that flew out of a base in Takhli, Thailand. He said that her father was in charge of flight operations and his wingman was Captain (Capt) B. In Apr 2005, she received a letter from General XX (Exhibit C). He stated that her father was trying to “nurse” Capt X.’s plane back to safety. XX said that a few moments later, Capt X.’s plane pitched upward, an explosion occurred and both planes went down. He said that Capt X. was later found in his pilot’s seat, but he was not aware that her father was killed. She later spoke to a friend who worked on F-105s in the 1960's, and he told her that the loss of hydraulic fluid in the nose area probably caused the loss of steering in Capt X.’s plane. On 2 Aug 2009, she read an article titled “Medals of Honor: Why so few?” (Exhibit E). This is when she realized that her father might possibly qualify for the MoH if she could prove that he died while trying to save the life of Capt X. On 15 Jan 2012, she received an electronic communiqué from B.S., which described in detail, the mission he was on with her father (Exhibit F). On 8 Feb 2010, she sent an electronic communiqué to her father's best friend, XX, who had known her father since 1950. Mr. X. was also a pilot in the Korean and Vietnam wars, and she asked him what he remembered about her father’s death. He confirmed the account in an email the same day, stating that he had found out later that her father was underneath Capt X.’s plane, actually providing a "push" to his aircraft [to try and help him land safely] (Exhibit H). Mr. X. also provided his affidavit, stating that her father deserves the "highest award" for his bravery (Exhibit I). On 20 Feb 2010 she received the affidavit from W.K. (Exhibit G). In Mar 2010, she managed to locate her father's commander at the time of his act of “conspicuous gallantry at the risk of his life,” 92-year old Major General (MGen) XX., USAF, Retired. At first he could not recall the event, but he remembered after she sent him a photograph of him presenting one of her father's medals to her younger brother (Exhibit J). On 16 Apr 2010, MGen X. signed and notarized his endorsement recommending the award of the MoH for her father (Exhibit L). The Department of the Air Force (DAF) then contacted her advising her that according to rules and regulations, it appeared that awarding the MoH would constitute dual recognition, since her father had already received the DFC w/1 OLC. Their request for a letter upgrading the DFC w/1 OLC to the MoH was then signed by MGen X. on 20 Sep 2010 (Exhibit M). Based on conversations with XX. and his affidavit, the letter she received from General H., the accounts of this mission by XX., who flew out of Takhli that day, the affidavit of her father's best friend, the letters from MGen X., and her recollections as a child (her birth certificate verifies kinship, Exhibit N), it is apparent that her father died while trying to save the life of his wingman, Capt X. His recognition is long overdue, and he is most deserving of the Congressional MoH for his heroic actions. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of newspaper articles, photographs, affidavits, electronic communiqués, US Air Force Biography, AF Form 58, Casualty Assistance Summary; Form DS-1350, Certification of Report of Birth of a United States Citizen; DD Form 13, Statement of Service, award citation, Posthumous Awards letter, Operation Spring High execution letter, and various other supporting documentation. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The deceased member served on Active Duty from 20 Jan 1943 through 27 Jul 1965. According to his DD Form 1300, he died in a military aircraft accident on 27 Jul 1965, as a result of hostile action. At the time of his death, the member was assigned to the 357th Tactical Fighter Squadron and was on temporary duty (TDY) to the 6234th Combat Support Group in Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. According to sections 3741, 6241, and 8741 of Title 10, United States Code (references (m), (n), and (o), respectively), the MoH may be awarded to members of the United States (US) Armed Forces who distinguish themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their lives above and beyond the call of duty under any of the following circumstances: 1. While engaged in an action against an enemy of the US. 2. While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force. 3. While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing Armed Force in which the US is not a belligerent party. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states in part the applicant's submission does not provide incontestable proof of the performance of the service. The evidence appears to be contradictory in that some evidence suggests an accident that occurred while the applicant was performing a visual check of his wingman's aircraft. The applicant provided as evidence a personal affidavit. While this document provides an overview of the circumstances concerning the applicant's death, it is all second hand or even third hand information in regards to the incident. The applicant provided several pictures and newspaper articles; however, DPSIDR was unable to determine any relevance to the facts of the case. On 15 Nov 2012, the recommendation and supporting documentation for the MoH was forwarded to the approval authority, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for decision. On 27 Jun 2011, the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board advised DPSIDR that "based on the information received, the Air Force Decoration Board has disapproved the MoH award recommendation for the applicant’s father." The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The advisory opinion states that "MoH recommendations must contain a minimum of two eyewitness statements." However, it appears that the complete list of items for an award recommendation has not been followed for all past recipients. In a MoH award presented to Marine R.B., it was discovered years later the Board asked for only one eyewitness account. Furthermore, MoH awards have been granted in the past for a man who saved a woman from a burning building and another who saved a ship's cook from drowning. This is similar to her father trying to save the life of his wingman. She is unaware of any information that her father "was submitted for" the DFC w/1 OLC, only that he received this award for his actions on 27 July 1965. Her original DD Form 149 reflects that she requested the following error or injustice in the record be corrected to "either upgrade to the MoH or to award the MoH separately for her father's efforts in trying to save the life of his wingman.” The DFC w/1 OLC was awarded for exceptional flying on the day in question, which several other pilots who flew on this mission also received. She believes this was why her mother asserts that there was "another medal" that her father deserved. Additional internet research shows that F-105 pilot L.T. received both the MoH and the DFC for a SAM mission he flew on 19 Apr 1967. Mr. T. is still alive and can verify the chain of command for her father's MoH since he was also a member of the 357th. Their families were stationed in Germany in 1962 where she and his daughter were best friends in the second grade. The letter from XX. (Exhibit C) is not an eyewitness account, but he was there when it happened. He states, "Up ahead I saw a flash, heard a beeper, meaning someone had punched out, when we came through there was still a bunch of black smoke in the sky at our altitude, the beeper kept broadcasting." Capt X. was able to eject, but her father was killed instantly. The electronic communiqué from Mr. X. states that he heard about the collision; however, it does not discount his entire version of the events leading up to the mission and what occurred that day (Exhibit F). Mr. X. flew on the mission that day with her father. He still feels the pain of that day, which is evident from his writings. The affidavit of Mr. W.K. does not reflect everything he told her when they first spoke on the phone in Aug 2004; however, he does state, "I was 10 minutes behind X.’s flight off our ...,” and “my knowledge about the loss of X. and X. was learned through the mission debriefing made by X. and X., who witnessed the combined explosion of X and X’s aircraft." The AF Form 58 (Exhibit K) lists the cause of death as "military aircraft accident," but she questions “what else could it be?” The AF Form 58 also reflects that on 21 Oct 1965, Col. X., the commander of the 835th Air Division presented the DFC, Air Medal (AM) and Purple Heart (PH) to the family of Major X. Col. X.’s affidavit (Exhibit M), clearly states, “In June 1965, I assumed command over the 835th Air Division and was the commander over the 355th Tactical Fighter Wing and the 357th Tactical Fighter Squadron. Major X. was in the 357th TFS assigned TDY to the 6234th Tactical Fighter Wing (provisional). I was the most senior supervising commander over Major X. and he was under my direct chain of command. Major X. was in my squadron when he was TDY to Karat [sic], Thailand in Jul 1965.” The applicant states this should be the only chain of command endorsement needed. Mr. X.X. is still alive and can also verify the chain of command since he was also a member of the 357th. The pictures and articles relate to the mission flown on 27 July 1965. They are relevant because they show that the mission did occur. There are many accounts and books about the Vietnam War that make no mention of this mission because it was “secret” (i.e., Robert McNamara's book In Retrospect). She refers to the letter from General XX, as well as the affidavits from XX (Exhibit G), XX. (Exhibit I) and her father's commander, Col. XX. (Exhibits L and M), and asserts there should be no question that her father was trying to save the life of Capt X. Mr. XX. took off ten minutes after her father and Mr. H. flew through the black smoke seconds after the collision occurred. In addition, her father's remains were exhumed on 1 Oct 2011 to verify their existence. A board- certified licensed pathologist, Dr. XX., can verify that her father died from blunt-force trauma to the head to support the claim that he was flying under Capt X. when his plane pitched up and struck her father's cockpit. She does not recall receiving a SAFPC letter, dated 27 Jun 2011, advising DPSIDR that the MoH award was disapproved. Her congressman supported this effort for a year, until he was elected Senator in Nov 2010. She was not aware that any more supporting documentation was needed to submit to SAFPC for their one-time reconsideration. She has always felt that the requirements for the MoH were met according to a letter dated 28 Aug 2009, stating that a recommendation letter from her father's commanding officer was the last document they needed (Exhibit B). She would only be required to seek recourse from the AFBCMR if she was unable to obtain this letter. She was thrilled to locate Col. X., who sent his affidavit with his recommendation for the MoH on 16 Apr 2010 (Exhibit L). He signed another affidavit on 20 Sept 2010 for the upgrade (Exhibit M). Similar to the citation for Mr. XX., she feels that her father should be awarded the MoH "for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty." Mr. X. is one of only a few living MoH recipients. It should be noted that his efforts to destroy MIGs on a SAM mission 19 Apr 1967 helped reduce the loss of life during battle, but it is doubtful there were witnesses to every flying maneuver he made that day. However, he was still deserving of the MoH. She believes that incontestable proof of her father's performance is more than evident to any reasonable person who reviews the documents provided. Other members of Congress appear to agree as to the merits of this MoH award. Her father's own commander verified in his affidavit that he was conducting a "push maneuver" to try and help his wingman land safely before they both perished in the attempt. Her father laid down his life for his friend. Her complete 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 evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. It should be noted that this Board does not have the authority to award the MoH. However, if the evidence warrants, we can make a recommendation to the approving authority for consideration of the MoH. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission and response to the Air Force advisory, we are not persuaded her father’s action on the date in question, although commendable, rise to a level to meet the criteria for award of the MoH. We note that the recommendation and supporting documentation for the MoH was forwarded to the approval authority, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), on 15 Nov 2010, for decision. On 27 Jun 2011, the SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board advised DPSIDR that "based on the information received, the Air Force Decoration Board has disapproved the MoH award recommendation for the applicant’s father." Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain that her father has suffered either an error or an injustice. The personal sacrifice her father endured for his country is noted; however, insufficient documentary evidence has been presented to warrant recommending him for award of the MoH. 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 Docket Number BC- 2010-04486 in Executive Session on 5 Sep 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04486 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 2010, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 23 Feb 2012, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Mar 2012, w/atchs. Panel Chair